1993 PLP 656 (PLC)

‑‑‑‑"Workman"‑‑‑Determination of‑‑Employee claimed that he fell within category of 'workman' as he had no power of hire and fire and had no; administrative or supervisory duties to perform‑‑‑Employee in fact was an officer Grade‑III belonging to an Officers ' Association as distinguished from a trade union of workers‑‑‑Claim of employee that he was a workman, was contradictory to positing that he was holding in Officers' Association. (b) Industrial dispute‑‑‑

Transfer of employee‑‑‑Employee had challenged transfer order alleging that he had been transferred with mala fide intention on account of his trade union activities‑‑‑Transfer orders were generally actuated by departmental requirements and exigency of service‑‑‑Over stay of some of colleagues of employee, was not a good ground for holding that his transfer was mala fide‑‑‑Employee could suffer some domestic dislocation because of his transfer, but it was for employers to consider that aspect of case. Shamshir Iqbal Chughtai for Petitioners. Date of hearing: 19th December 1992. The petitioner Muhammad Nawaz is an Officer Grade‑III posted in' UBL Zonal Office, Farid Gate, Bahawalpur and has been transferred to Gujar Khan Zone in the District of Rawalpindi by order dated 17‑12‑1992. The second petitioner in this case is Muhammad Tauseef Asim who is the General Secretary of the United Bank Limited Officers' Welfare Association. He has no personal interest in the impugned transfer order and has come forward only to support the grievance of the petitioner No. 1.

2. It has been submitted that the petitioner No. 1 is Member of the Mushawarati Council of the. United Bank Limited Officers' Welfare Association and it is on account of his trade union activities that the impugned order of transfer dated 17‑12‑1992 has been passed at the instance of Officers Progressive Association, the rival of the Association to which the petitioner belongs, in collusion with the two officers of the CBA. In the first para of the petition it has been claimed that the petitioner falls within the category of workers as he has no power of hire and fire and has no administrative or supervisory duties to perform. In my view this petition cannot proceed because petitioner admittedly is an officer Grade III belonging to an Officers Association as distinguished from a trade union of workers. His claim that he, is a worker, is contradictory to the position that he holds in the Officers Association. Assuming that he may be a worker, the bare allegation contained in para 2 of the petition that he has been victimised because of his trade union activities cannot be said to have laid the foundation for a case of unfair labour practice. The only fact to support the allegation of mala fides is mentioned in para. 5 of the petition and is to the effect that the petitioner's stay in the present place of posting is for only one year and there are other persons employed in the branch who have stayed there for much longer period, some of them for about ten years.

3. The transfer orders are generally actuated by departmental requirements and exigency of service. The over stay of some of the colleagues, of the petitioner is not a good ground for holding that this transfer is mala fide. He may suffer some domestic dislocation because of this transfer but it is for the employers to consider this aspect of the case. Since no case of unfair labour practice has prima facie been made and the petitioner No. 1 happens to be a member of Officers Association, the case in my view is not covered by the provisions of the IRO,

199. This petition is, therefore, dismissed as being not maintainable and without any substance. H.B.T./192/NIRC ??????????? Petition dismissed.