Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 170 of 1974, decided on 15^thApril 1975.

‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Transfer‑Inherent right of employer‑Transfer of Railway employee (Class IV) not found to be against instructions nor as a measure of victimization‑Such employee has no locus standi to file an application under S. 25‑A.

Sh. A. Ghafoor for Appellant.

Agha Taj Muhammad for Respondent.

This is an appeal against the order dated 23rd July 1974 of Junior Labour Court, Lahore whereby the said learned Court dismissed an application filed by Boota appellant under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 challenging his order of transfer from Gang No. 30 at Walton Training School to Gang No. 20 at Gamber near Okara.

2. The appellant is employed as Gang Mate in the Railway Department. He filed an application under section 25‑A of the I. R. O. against the Divisional Superintendent, P. W. Railway, Lahore the respondent on 27th November 1973 wherein he alleged that Asstt. Engineer No.1, Lahore who had harbour ed some grudge against the appellant for certain personal reasons wrongfully marked the appellant as absent on 8th October 1973 although he was present. He further alleged that later on the appellant was suspended on the charges of being absent from duty. He remained under suspension from 9th October 1973 to 22nd October 1973 and was wrongfully transferred on 22nd October 1973 from G. No. 30 at Walton Training School to G. No. 120 at Gamber According to the appellant his transfer was contrary to the relevant Railway Rule which provided that Class IV employees should not be transferred. He, therefore, sought the cancellation of his transfer.

3. The application filed by the appellant was opposed by the respondent who pleaded inter alia that a petition against the order of transfer was not maintainable under section 25‑A of the I. R. O. 1969. On merits the respondent contended that the appellant was actually found absent from duty. He was also guilty of certain other lapses. Therefore he was placed under suspension. He remained suspended from 9th October 1973 to 18th October 1973. He was, however put back to his duty on 19th October 1973. His period of suspension was treated as period spent on duty, Later on he was transferred to Gang No. 4. Then transfer was ordered strictly in accordance with the rules and in the best interest of the administration.

4. After considering the parties pleadings and in view of the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent to the effect that the suspension period of the appellant from 9th October 1973 to 18th October 1973 had already been treated as spent on duty and that he had been paid in full for this period, the learned lower court concluded that the appellant had no locus standi to agitate against his transfer. Consequently the appellant's application was dismissed through the impugned order.

5, Section 25‑A of the I. R. O. provides that a workman may apply to the junior Labour Court to bring his grievance in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any award or settlement for the time being in force. To order the transfer of an employee is the inherent right of the employer unless of course the transfer is forbidden by any law. The respondent has alleged that the transfer of the appellant was ordered in the interest of the Railway Administration and not as a measure of victimization. The rule on which the appellant has placed reliance in his application is in the nature of instruction which provides that Class IV emplo yees should not be transferred except through mutual exchange or against vacancy etc, and transfers due to complaints of inefficiency should be avoided and instead disciplinary action should be taken against the staff. These instructions in this manner do not totally prohibit the transfers of Class IV employees. It would thus follow that the appellant had no guaranteed or secured right of not being transferred from Walton Training School. He has therefore, no locus standi to file an application under section 25‑A of the I. R. O. as has been held by the learned lower Court.

6. In this view of the matter, I uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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