1989 PLP 269 (PLC)

Petition No. LHR‑398 of 1987, decided on 4th August, 1987. ‑‑‑Ss. 15 & 38(3‑a). ‑Transfer of office‑bearer of Union‑‑Mere election as office bearer of Union without any overt act taken by such office‑bearer for the benefit of the workers was not sufficient to say that his transfer was mala fide‑‑Transfer order not involving change of station but involving chain of transfers‑‑No document to support alleged unfair labour practice‑‑Labour Court dismissed stay application against transfer order‑‑Appellate Tribunal declined to interfere in revision. Ch. Ghulam Rasul for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 4th August, 198

7. This revision challenges the order dated 30‑7‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore whereby the stay application of the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The petitioner has been transferred from the Headquarters Office to Multan Road, Depot, Lahore and he has challenged the said order in his grievance petition on the ground of unfair Labour practice asserting that he was elected President of the union, and by way of victimization his transfer has been ordered. In the impugned order it is observed by the learned lower Court that no material has been brought on the record to show that the appointment of the petitioner as off‑ice‑holder of the union annoyed the management. The claim of the petitioner is that he acted for the benefits of the workers and that is why he has been transferred but no document is on the record in support of this assertion. This is not the case of the petitioner that any demands have been raised or any other overt act has been done by him for the benefit of the workers. The mere fact that he has been elected as the President of the union is not sufficient to say at this sage that the transfer is mala fide. Learned counsel for the petitioner A has not been able to successfully attack the observations made by the learned lower Court in the impugned order which are to the effect that not only there is the union of which the petitioner has been elected as the President but there are other unions and office‑bearers of the same union but they have not been touched. This appears to be a good ground to say that the assertion of the petitioner has been victimized, prima facie appears to be wrong. The petitioner has not been transferred out of the city and, therefore, it cannot be said that any dislocation B has been caused resulting inconvenience to him. The petitioner must have been transferred in place of some other person and in his place some other person may have been transferred in the Head Office, therefore, if stay order prayed for issued without any justification it would cause great inconvenience to the respondent by making reshuffling again. So far as loss is concerned learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show that by refusal of the stay order any irreparable injury will be suffered by the petitioner. He will get the same wages at his new place, of posting which he is getting at present. If at all there is any difference the same can be calculated and if ultimately the transfer is set aside and the petitioner is sent back to the Headquarters Office, he can claim the same.

3. As a result I do not find any force in the revision and dismiss the same in limine. A.E./406/Lb.P Revision dismissed.