1995 PLP 753 (PLC)

Muhammad Nawaz v. General Manager, WAPDA etc. 1994 PLC 140, 1988 PLC 726, PLJ 1983 TRC (Lab.) 283 and 1986 PLC 593 ref. M.K. Khan for Petitioner. Asad Iqbal for Respondents. This is a petition under section 22‑A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 wherein the petitioner contends that he is an employee of the respondents establishment and is an active member of PIAC Employees' Union (PIACE). Previously the petitioner was a member of Peoples Unity of PIA Employees Union which was the CBA and after referendum, which was held on 2‑10‑1991 again the Peoples Unity has defeated the petitioner's union and the presently CBA. According to the petitioner the respondent establishment is influenced by the Peoples Unity of PIA (CBA) and is committing unfair labour practice by way of transfer of the petitioner to Karachi.

2. The respondents have seriously contested the petition thereby filing written statement and rejoinder to the application therein certain preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the petition were also raised.

3. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties were heard, and examined the documents, filed on record. None of the parties has desired to produce oral evidence and preferred to advance arguments only.

4. It has been admitted by the parties and is also evident from the transfer letter dated 4‑3‑1992, that the petitioner was transferred from Karachi to Rawalpindi/Islamabad at his own request. Thereafter, when the petitioner was transferred from Islamabad to Karachi, he made a request by filing of application, dated 15‑9‑1992, that he is an office‑bearers of the CBA and this request was also accepted by the respondent vide their letter dated 2nd February, 1993. Thereafter, the petitioner ceased to be a member of the Peoples Unity, the then CBA, and became a member of the PIACE Union meaning thereby that he was no more an office‑bearer of the CBA, whose services can be required, by the CBA for the performance of lawful trade union activities. Besides, it is a well‑settled principle of law that transfer of employees is the right of the management/establishment for the performance of day-to-day affairs of the establishment, interest of the establishment and its better working performance etc. Reference can be made to case‑law, Muhammad Nawaz v. General Manager, WAPDA etc. 1994 PLC page 140; 1988 PLC 726, PLJ 1983 TRC (Lab.) 283 and 1986 PLC

593. There is nothing on record, which can establish that the transfer of the petitioner is an act of administration due to his lawful trade union activities. When the petitioner was a member and office‑bearer of the CBA, the establishment itself acceded to his request, but at present there is neither such justification, nor any indication of unfair labour practice on the part of the establishment. Therefore, the petition is dismissed without any orders as to costs. H.B.T./236/NIRC ?????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.