Find a Lawyer

Case No. 24 (17)/4(18) of 1984, decided on 26th April, 1984.

Words and phrases-"Transfer"-Meaning-Sending or shifting from one posting or position to another-Amounts to transfer.

Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edn., 1979 and Oxford Dictionary, Fourth Edn., 1942 rel.

-- Ss. 8-A & 15 and National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, para. 32-Unfair labour practice-Transfer of office-bearer of trade union during pendency of registration application-Case per se covered by special provisions of S. 8-A-Provisions of S. 15 general in nature in circumstances, would not be attracted-Application to National Industrial Relations Commission against such transfer terming same as an unfair labour practice, held, not within its jurisdiction.

Ch. Khalid Farooq for Complainant.

M. G. Sadullah Mumtaz for Respondents.

This is an application under Regulation 32 of the N. 1. R. C. (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973 praying that respondents and connected persons be directed to refrain from committing unfair labour practice by 1-eeping Muhammad Alam and Habib Ahmad under suspension and by dismissing them from their service after conducting partial inquiry. It was further prayed that Muhammad Afzal, General Secretary of the Union be directed to be paid full salary, allowed to mark attendance in the Attendance Register and provided booking duty.

2. Briefly, the alleged facts of the case are that the Punjab Road Transport Azad Mazdoor Paigham Union Saddar Depot, Lahore was formed in December, 1983. Muhammad Afzal, Muhammad Alam and Habib Ahmed were respectively its General Secretary, Publicity Secretary and Finance Secretary. The application for registration of this Union was made to the Registrar of Trade Unions, Lahore Region, Lahore on 4th January, 1984. The same day an intimation of the names of office-bearers of the Union was sent to the respondent No. 1. This letter was received by one Muhammad Nasim Ilahi, Junior Clerk on 4th January, 1984. The application for registration was pending till 25th January, 1984. When this application alongwith complaint of unfair labour practice was filed. It was stated that on 4th January, 1984 respondent No. 1 issued charge- sheet against Muhammad Alam and suspended him from service on 5th January, 1984. Respondent No. 2 acting in connivance with respondent No. 1, issued six notices of inquiry against him on 9th January, 1984 on coin. plaints dating back to 1951 and 1982 dug out for the occasion. Muhammad Afzal Booking Clerk who on transfer from Islamabad reported for duty on l0th January, 1984, was not allowed by respondent No. 2 to mark his attendance. He sent an application on 11th January, 1984 protesting against it. However, on 12th January, 1984 he was transferred and posted in Account Section where he loses a commission of some three hundred rupees per month. He made applications against this discrimination due to trade unionism to respondent No. 1 on 16th January, 1984 and 17th January, 1984 but in vain. Finally this Bench issued stay order directing that the order of his transfer be not implemented. Habib Ahmed was issued a charge-sheet on 3rd December, 1983 for alleged implication in fraud or negligence as he had not got checked the revenue paid by a conductor through his subordinates. go was suspended on 14th January, 1984.

3. By my order dated 26th January, 1984 I had held that since only dates for inquiry had been fixed in cases of Habib Ahmed and Muhammad Alam, therefore, in my opinion there was no apprehension that for, that -as unfair labour practice was likely to be conducted and it was premature to approach for stay order at that stage. For Muhammad Afzal, it was ordered that respondent No. 2 be directed not to implement impugned order, dated 12th January, 1984 till 16th February, 1984 when the order was to come up for confirmation or otherwise. Respondent No. 2 was also directed to submit parawise comments on the stay application. Parawise comments have been submitted by respondent No. 2 and arguments of both sides have been heard.

4. The stand taken by respondents is that legally they could transfer Muhammad Afzal in the Account Section as the right to transfer was the inherent right of the employer. On facts they state that they had not transferred Muhammad Afzal and he was posted only for a few days in the Account Section. They further state that getting commission was not the vested right of Muhammad Afzal secured to him through law, settlement or award and consequently could not be enforced by this Court. They have taken a number of other grounds which need not be cited in the interest of brevity. It is admitted position that Muhammad Afzal Booking Clerk was posted for pre-audit work in the Account Section of the G. T. S. Sadar Depot.

5. Since word "transfer" has not been defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. 1 refer to the ordinary dictionary meaning The meaning given in Black's Law Dictionary (Fifth Edition 1979) is ass under :-

---To convey or remove from one place person etc. to another ; pass or hand over the possession or control of (as, to transfer a title to law), To sell or give."

This word carries the following meaning according to the Oxford Dictionary (Fourth Edition 1942) ;

---Shift from one position or receptacle to another (from, to), make over the possession of to."

6. Since he has been sent, conveyed or removed from one posting or position to another, I hold it to be transfer from one post to another. It is immaterial that this transfer was temporary and was to last for a few days. Had that been the case the impugned order would have been withdrawn by now. The fact that the order holds the field shows that this was no casual arrangement lasting over a few days to tide over a difficult staffing exigency.

7. As this transfer was effected during the pendency of the application for registration of the Union in my opinion it is per se a case covered by the provisions of section 8-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The provisions of section 15 of the Ordinance (ibid) which are general in nature would not be attracted in the presence of the special provisions of section 8-A of the Ordinance (ibid). This Commission has thus no jurisdiction to bear this application in respect of Muhammad Afzal, which is dismissed and the stay order already granted is recalled.

A. E. Application 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.