Find a Lawyer

Miscellaneous Application No. 32 of 1972, decided 14th June 1972.

, S. 47 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2 Applicant worker refusing to comply with orders of transfer and application seeking permission for his dismissal pending In Court Question of issuing ad interim injunction does not arise‑Second applicant having already complied with orders of his transfer, injunc tion restraining his transfer no longer practicable‑Third applicant making out no cogent ground for restraining his transfer, transfer cannot be restrained merely on ground that applicant happens to be an office‑bearer of Union ‑ Transfer of employees ‑ Normal incidence of service‑Cannot be restrained unless made with male lade Intentions.

Wasi Ahmad for Applicant.

Fakhruddin Farooqi for Respondent.

.‑‑In this applica tion under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C P. C., the applicant Union seeks ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from dismissing, discharging, terminating the services. and trans ferring, the three ‑office‑bearers of the Union viz., (1) B. D'Souza, General Secretary, (2) Patrick Fernandis, Treasurer and (3) Ehsan Ellahi, office‑bearer.

The case of the applicant‑Union is that it is the Collective Bargaining Agent of the respondent‑Industries, and an Industrial Dispute is pending before the Conciliator at the Labour Direc torate. On account of this the respondents have been victimizing the office‑bearers of the Union by dismissing and transferring them. They had he'd a departmental enquiry against B. D'Souza, the General Secretary, and have issued orders of transfer of other two. Hence they have moved this applicant.

The respondents state that their Head Office at Karachi is a Training Institute where apprentices are trained and than deputed to work in the other offices at Karachi as well as outside Karachi. The Company had issued Eiders of transfer of not only the 3 office‑bearers of the Union, but also 2 non‑office‑bearers, on account of exigency of business. The order of transfer of B. D'Souza to Hyderabad was issued cm 16th February 1972, but, since he refused to come Fly with the order, an enquiry was held against him for the charge of misconduct and an application has been filed under section 47 of the 1. R,/O., 1969, seeking permission of the Court to dismiss him from service. Ehsan Illahi complied with the orders of transfer and has joined his new post at. Lahore. His letter dated 27th March 1972, to this effect has been produced as Annexure 'B'.

Now, as regards B. D'Souza, since an application seeking permission for his dismissal for misconduct in refusing to comply with the orders of transfer is pending in the Court, the question of ad Interim, injunction does not arise in his case. Similarly, Ehsan Illahi having joined the new posting at Lahore in pursuance of the order of transfer, as is evident from his letter dated 27th March 1972, no injunction can be granted in his case. As regards the third applicant viz., Patrick Fernandis, no cogent ground has been made out by the applicant‑Union for restraining his transfer. The transfer of an employee is the normal incidence of the service, and it cannot be restrained merely because he happens to be, the office‑bearer of the Union, unless it is proved that it was made with mala fide intentions. Therefore for the present, I find that no prima facie case has been made out with respect to any of the 3 applicants for the grant of the ad interim injunction they have sought. Consequently, the application is dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.