Find a Lawyer

Case No. 4(144) of 1985, decided on 5th January, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 22‑A (8)(g)‑‑Jurisdiction of Industrial Relations Commission‑‑Cases of unfair labour practice, held, were within jurisdiction of said commission and could be dealt with by it.

‑‑‑S. 22‑A (8)(g)‑‑Unfair labour practice‑‑Transfer of office‑bearer of Labour. Union on prima facie case of corruption, held, would not come within purview of unfair labour practice‑‑Allegation of unfair labour practice could not take place of proof.

P L J 1974 Tribunal Cases Lah 99 ref.

‑‑‑S. 22‑A (8)(g)‑‑Transfer of employee‑‑Bona fide of‑‑Such transfer not made on account of trade union activities but on prima facie allegations of corruption so as to facilitate enquiry against such employee‑‑No prima facie case of unfair labour practice having been made out and employer being authorised to transfer employee, transfer of employee, held, was justified in circumstances.

Raja A. Rashid for Petitioner.

Asif Hussain Siddiqui and M.A.

Shaida for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 19th September, 1985.

This petition under section 22‑A (8)(g) of the I.R.O. 1969 has been submitted by Shaukat Hussain, Line Superintendent, Gulgashat Sub‑Division, Wapda Multan against the Chairman Area Electricity Board, Wapda, Multan and his Director Administration. The petitioner claims to be the Chairman of Pakistan WAPDA Labour Union which applied for referendum and the matter is pending before the N.I.R.C. According to him his status was communicated to the respondents vide letter dated 3‑4‑1985. One Zaman Khan was the office‑bearer of Hydro‑Electric Central Labour Union and was reverted as Line Superintendent‑I1 and transferred from Gulgashat to the Office of Superintending Engineer of the area. After his reversion the petitioner and his colleagues started canvassing from their trade union in connection with the forthcoming referendum. When this was brought to the notice of respondents they reacted in a hostile manner and issued transfer order of Muhammad Ramzan from Gulgashat to Sub‑Division No.4 on 7‑5‑1985. The transfer was object to and a protest letter was issued by the petitioners Central Vice‑President but instead of cancellation of the transfer order of Muhammad Ramzan the petitioner was made victim and was transferred on 7‑6‑1985. It has been alleged that this transfer has been made under the direct influence and connivance of the rival union. The transfer order was mala fide and was not passed in the interest of the organisation. The petitioner prayed that the transfer order dated 7‑6‑1985 may be set aside.

2. The learned counsel for the respondent raised preliminary objections relating to the jurisdiction of the Commission as the petitioner was a Civil Servant and the transfer was a condition precedent in the contract of the employment of the petitioner. The objections are overruled in view of a number of decisions of the Commission in which it has been held that cases of unfair labour practice could be dealt with by l the Commission.

3. The respondents denied the knowledge of the election of the petitioner as Chairman of Wapda Labour Union as they have not issued any notification to this effect and the same has not been received by the respondents. It is stated that the copies supplied indicated that it was after thought to get his transfer cancelled. It was denied that the petitioner had ever protested against the transfer of Muhammad Ramzan either to S.E. 1st Circle, Multan who was the next higher authority or the respondents as no such letter was ever received by the respondents. The respondents. pointed out that a Letter No. SSH/85/477, dated 12‑6‑1985 was received by them from Riasat Ali, Senior Special Magistrate, WAPDA Multan wherein it was alleged that the petitioner had received Rs.500 as illegal gratification from one consumer namely Taj Muhammad son of Muhammad Din for installing domestic connection and he also enclosed an application of said Taj Muhammad alongwith the statements of Mr. Ghulam Yasin and Khizer Abbas Naib‑Courts. A prima facie case of corruption existed against the petitioner and he could bring pressure on the witnesses and take revenge or resort to subsequent retaliation against the witnesses as they happened to be the consumers since the petitioner was involved in the case of corruption and other serious irregularities, impartial enquiry was necessary to bring out the true facts and as such the transfer of the petitioner was inevitable specially when he wielded considerable influence over the consumers.

4. He was accordingly transferred and Muhammad Ilyas Deputy Commercial Manager, Area Electricity Board WAPDA, Multan was appointed as Enquiry Officer vide Office Order No.631, dated 17‑6‑1985. It was, pointed out that the report from the Enquiry Officer was still awaited. The consumer had further submitted an application wherein he has stated that the petitioner is exercising pressure and compelling him to resale from the previous statement. It was, therefore, prayed that the orders of the authority were lawful and in the interest of the authority and in the interest of the public.

5. I have heard both the learned counsel. The learned counsel for the petitioner among other things stated that the petitioner was willing to face the enquiry on the same station where he was posted because after the transfer it will not be possible for the petitioner to face false enquiry.

6. I have gone through a number of reported cases relating to the matter in issue In P L J 1974 Tribunal Cases Lah. 99 it was held that an office‑bearer of a union has no licence to commit misconduct and if he does so he is liable to be charge‑sheeted for the same. The learned counsel has not narrated any facts of unfair labour practice on the part of the management and has nothing to say except that the petitioner has been transferred. The allegation of unfair labour practice cannot take place of proof.

7. In view of the above discussions, I find that the transfer of the petitioner has not been made on account of any trade union activities and that the respondents considered it in the interest of the authority and in the interest of the public to remove him from his place of posting as the person aggrieved against the petitioner has also filed another letter saying that he is pressurising ‑ him to withdraw the complainant against him. Even otherwise the WAPDA rules provide for transfer of the employees to anywhere in Pakistan. I, therefore, find that no prima facie case of unfair labour practice has been made out by the petitioner and there is no need of any evidence in this connection. I, therefore, dismiss the petition and recall the stay order dated 26‑6‑1985.

A.A. Petition 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.