1985 PLP 747 (PLC)

Powers Managing Director Principal Officer District Managers S. No. Powers Managing Director Principal Officer District Managers 1 2 3 4 5

20. To sanction the creation of posts for their own office and offices subordinate to them and to prescribe scale of pay in regard to them. Full powers in respect of all posts carrying pay scales upto those of District Managers subject to the pro vision in the Budget. Temporary posts upto N.P.S.‑12 for a period not exce eding six months subject to report to Corporation.

7. As for abolition of the posts of duty clerks I am of the view that an employer is free to make bona fide adjustments, in his staff, affording to law, to suit his business requirements. The above cited delegation of financial powers shows that power to sanction and create posts has been conferred on the Managing Director. It, therefore, follows that he who could create a post could also abolish that post. I am fortified in this view by a dictum of Mr. A. Aamer Raza A, Khan, J. in Writ Petition No. 5174/S‑1980 Liaqat Ali v. P.R.T.B.

Board may under Clause (1) of Rule 12 create posts as also abolish them. Further as is evident from rule 14, the board may delegate its powers to the Managing Director and this will obviously include powers under clause (1) of Rule 12 afore referred. By item No. 20 of the "Delegation of Power Rules" the Managing Director is delegated the power to create posts upto Grade‑

18. Consequently, it follows that he can also in exercise of such powers abolish posts upto Grade‑18."

8. Thus, I conclude that respondent No. 1 was competent to abolish the posts of the petitioners. The only question therefore is as to whether these posts were abolished due to trade union activities of the petitioners. At this stage, I have not recorded the evidence. Without recording evidence it could not be said with certainty that whatever is stated is true and correct. The entire case of petitioner hinges upon evidence to show that unfair labour practice has been committed and that impugned order is mala fide because it was issued to curb the trade union activities in the establishment. Respondents' counsel has shown the original file of the office of respondent No. 1 containing the original notes leading to issuance of the impugned order dated, 24th January, 1985. These notes per se do not show that the trade union activities had anything to do with the decision to abolish the posts of duty' clerks. On the other hand the assertion of the petitioners is that it is not casual coincidence that out of six or seven duty clerks affected except one, every one was Officer of one or the other trade union. The counsel for the petitioners states that the action stems from the intense dislike of the respondents for trade unionism and their desire to to victimize these officers of trade Union, to determine whether it is true or not, evidence will have to be recorded. The whole case, therefore, hinges upon the evidence, which is yet to be recorded. Thus, granting of interim relief in these circumstances will be pre‑mature. In fact in the case of N.C.C. Juna Bunder Joint Venture Workers Union v. N.C.C. Ltd. (N L R 1980 T D 95) the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal went so far as to vacate the interim relief already granted by the Sind Labour Court No. V, Karachi on the very ground.

9. I, therefore, dismiss the three petitions for interim relief and recall the stay orders already issued. The main petitions shall come up for evi dence on a date to be specified by office. Stay order vacated.