Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Appeals Nos. KAR‑206 of 1983 and 187 of 1984, heard on 1st October, 1985.
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A a 38(3)‑‑Transfer‑‑Workman liable to transfer to company's location according to terms of appointment‑‑Transfer order challenged‑ No right guaranteed or secured under any law, award or settlement to challenge transfer order‑‑Grievance petition, in circumstances, held, rightly dismissed by Labour Court.
Nemo for Appellant.
Muhammad Humayoon for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 1st October, 1985.
These are two appeals filed by the appellant Muhammad Ali Wapiwala, one was decided by Sind Labour Court 'No, V, Karachi on 4‑6‑1983 and the other was decided by Sind Labour Court No. V on 9‑7‑1984. The two appeals pertained to the same appoint and could be disposed of by this single order.
2. Muhammad Ali Wapiwala filed a petition under, section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969 praying therein for the declaration that the transfer order of the appellant from Karachi to Mahmoodkot, dated 30‑1‑1983 was a nullity in the eyes of law. He further prayed that the respondent establishment be directed to re‑instate or post him as Assistant in the same post at Karachi.
3. During the pendency of the petition, the respondents, Messrs Pakistan State Oil Company Limited filed an application to decide the preliminary legal objections in the petition as the appellant had no right guaranteed or secured under any law, award or the settlement. The very petition of the appellant was not maintainable in law and that the appellant had no locus standi. Simultaneously the appellant filed an application for staying the transfer order which was dismissed on 10‑3‑1985.
4. I have heard the Advocate for the respondents.
5. The important document in this respect is the letter of appointment Exh.R.l. This letter of appointment indicates that daring the course of the employment of the appellant, he is liable to be transferred in any other location of the respondents Company. The appellant has been transferred to the Company's location as per terms and conditions of the appointment letter and the transfer was proper. It shows that the appellant had no right guaranteed or secured under any law, award on settlement to challenge the order of his transfer to other location of the company. The transfer order was made on 30‑1‑1983 and the same had been implemented and the appellant was then relieved. This shows that the petition of the appellant became in fructuous. In the prayer clause the appellant has prayed that he be re‑instated. The re‑instatement is not available because his post was never terminated or he was not terminated. He continued to be in the service of the respondent Company. The petition, therefore, did not lie. The Labour Court, rightly decided and I find no force in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
6. Similarly the order passed on 9‑7‑1984 is to the effect that the petition filed by the appellant was rejected under Order VII, rule 11 of C.P.C. The facts therein were that on the date, namely, 9‑7‑1984 the petitioner and his counsel were absent while the Advocate of the respondent‑Company was present. In the main petition same grounds were agitated which were decided on 4‑6‑1983. The observation of the Labour Court was that it can not do it as the same was decided on 4‑6‑1983. The petition was incompetent.
7. Thus, I dispose of these two appeals and dismiss both the appeals by this single order.
A.E
Appeals dismissed
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer