Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Miscellaneous Application No. 113 of 1972, decided on 25th June 1972.
, S. 15 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2 Injunction, temporary‑Applicant Worker only transferred from one section to other and posted in same town‑Such transfer, held, cannot adversely effect applicant's Trade Union activities ‑ No ground, held, made out for restraining respondent from implementing order of transfer‑Application for ad interim injunction rejected.
Wasiullah Qureshi for Applicant.
Respondent in person.
In this, application under 'Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. the applicant seeks and interim injunction restraining the respondent from implementing the order of his transfer, dated 1st June 1972.
The applicant's case is that he was working as Store Fitter in the Agricultural Work‑shop at Tando Jam. He claims that he is the General Secretary of the Employees' Union of the workmen of the respondent‑Establishment. The respondent, who has been transferred and posted as Agricultural Engineer at Tando Jam in the month of May 1972, has started victimization of the office‑bearers and Members of the applicant's Union In order to strengthen the rival Union, and is disordinating between the Members of the two Unions. He has reduced the applicant from Stores Fitter to Stores Helper and has issued the orders of his transfer from the Workshop to the Office at Tando Jam. This, according to the applicant, has been done with a view to frustrate the referendum of Collective Bargaining Agent between the two Unions to be held on 13th June 1972.
The respondent has denied the allegations of victimization of the office‑bearers and Members of the Trade Union including the applicant. According to him, the applicant was reduced in rank as a result of the Agreement, dated 14th February' 1972, entered into with the workmen, in which the applicant is also a party. As regards his transfer, the respondent states that he bas been transferred only from one section to another with a wall between them. He has been posted at the same place viz., Tando Jam and has not been adversely affected by this transfer.
From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the applicant has only been transferred from one section of the respondent Establishment to the other and has been posted at the mama place at Tando Jam. Therefore. I don't see as to how the Trade Union activities of the applicant will be affected when he is posted at the same place and not anywhere outside it. The learned Representative of the applicant was also not able to convince me as to how the applicant's Trade Union activities would be adversely affected by such transfer. Therefore, for the present I do not find any ground for restraining the respondent from implementing the order of transfer of the applicant. Consequently, the application for ad interim injunction is rejected.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer