Find a Lawyer

Cases Nos.24 (26) and 24 (27) of 1985, decided on 8th,,January, 1986.

‑‑‑Ss. 22‑A (8) (g) a 15‑‑Unfair labour practice‑‑Scope of‑‑Duty Clerks redesignated as time checkers‑‑Management in any organization, held, would have unequivocal right to re‑organize service structure‑‑ Same would not in any way constitute unfair Labour practice‑‑Abolition of posts of duty clerks throughout Province and Federal territory would prove that establishment had no intention of committing unfair labour practice as all duty clerks whether belonging to petitioner union or other union would stand affected.

‑‑‑Ss. 15 a 22‑A (8) (g)‑‑Unfair labour practice‑‑Scope of‑‑Where persons affected by redesignation of posts would continue to get same pay and allowances with no adverse effect on terms and conditions of service, such affected persons, held, could not claim posts having been abolished after such redesignation‑‑Even otherwise, if post had not been abolished, affected persons could not claim such posts on permanent basis same being interchangeable within cadre.

(c) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑

‑‑‑S.Os. 12 (3) a 13‑‑Redesignation of post‑‑Provisions of S.Os. 12 (3) a 13 of Ordinance VI of 1968, held, would deal with termination of employment and retrenchment‑‑Provisions of Ordinance VI of 1968 would not apply in cases of redesignation of posts due to re‑organization of service structure carried out by establishment.

Khalid Farooq for Petitioners.

M.G. Saadullah Mumtaz for Respondent.

These petitions under Regulation 32 (2) read with section 22‑A (8) (g) read with section 15 of the I.R.O. are submitted by Muhammad Aslam and Amanullah against the Managing Director, P.U.T.C. , Lahore. It has been alleged that the respondent vide order, dated 24‑1‑1985 has abolished the posts of duty clerks and redesignated the same as time checkers. It has been alleged that this has injured their employment particularly the seniority as well as the promotion rights. The petitioners have prayed that no reason have been given for abolition of the post of duty clerks which is also against Standing Orders 12 (3) and 13 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. It was prayed that the respondent may be directed not to implement the impugned order, dated 24‑1‑1985 and not to commit any act of unfair labour practice. These cases were being dealt with by my learned brother Raja Iftikharullah Khan and he had heard the arguments partly but due to completion of his tenure the case was assigned to me. I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel.

2. Tae learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that a union named Road Transport Alfateh Mazdoor Union was formed and its papers for registration were sent to the Registrar of Trade Unions, N.I.R.C., Islamabad on 19‑1‑1985. The names of the office‑bearers of the union were communicated to the respondent on 22‑1‑1985. The petitioners were elected office‑bearers and they took active part in the formation of the union. Due to the reasons that the petitioners took active part in the union activities the respondent passed the order of abolition of the posts of duty clerks and in this way the respondent injured the petitioners in respect of their employment. On 7‑2‑1985 a status quo order was passed and the petitioners are still working as duty clerks. He stated that the functions of the duty clerks have now been assigned to Junior Clerks. He stated that the respondent has changed the terms and conditions of employment of the duty clerks although the work exists. The post could be abolished only if there was no work. He stated that the posts have been abolished to avoid corruption but there was no guarantee that the persons who have been assigned this job shall be above board. He stated that the rules shall have to be amended before the posts are abolished and the duties cannot be assigned to other cadres.

3. The learned Counsel for the respondent however submitted that no prima facie case exists and the petitioners could file an application under section 8‑A if they considered that their case of registration of the union was pending before the Commission. He stated that the transfer was not an act of unfair labour practice. He stated that there were 18 posts of duty clerks out of which 17 were employed and one post is vacant. Of these, 4 were office‑bearers of the C.B.A and 6 belong to non C.B.A. while 7 were not office‑bearers of any anion. He stated that the C.B.A. was also effected. The learned Counsel for the respondent pointed out that the order of abolition of post was issued on 24‑1‑1985 and implemented throughout Punjab and Islamabad Federal Territory, whereas the petitioners moved these petitions on 6‑2‑1985 and the order for the maintenance of status quo was passed on 7‑2‑1985 i.e. 13 days after .the actual enforcement of the order. He stated that the status quo ante could not be granted.

4. He further pointed out that it was within the powers of respondent to reorganise the business of the P.U.T.C., which was running in losses. He stated that the petitioners were not retrenched and instead equivalent posts carrying same scale of pay, allowances and benefits in the same traffic cadre are given to them. The transfer of the employees from one post to another was also a managerial function and there was no mala fide or victimisation as all the posts throughout Punjab and Islamabad Capital Territory have been abolished as a matter of policy in the best interest of the organisation. However, there was no right guaranteed or secured to the petitioners in any law, award or settlement, which has been violated by the respondent. He pointed out that the petitioners have not submitted any grievance notice as required under section 25‑A.

5. The learned Counsel for the respondent also pointed out that the incumbents working against the posts of duty clerks, time checkers, time keepers, ticket issuing clerks and booking clerks have a joint seniority within the traffic cadre and the posts are transferable in rotation as duty clerks in the depot for a period of one month. The petitioners therefore, could not claim their posting as duty clerks on permanent basis. He stated that the posts of duty clerks were abolished as a matter of policy due to the reasons that the duty clerks indulged in mal‑practices and corruption as a result of this the officials of the Traffic Cadre were in a race to be posted as duty clerks. In order to check this corruption it was imperative that an officer preferably the Assistant Traffic Manager should be deputed to assign duties to the Conductors.

6. The management in any organisation has an unequivocal right to reorganise the service structure and this does not in any way constitute an act of unfair labour practice. The respondent has given very cogent reason for the abolition of the post and there can be no objection for this action on the part of the respondent. The fact that ail the posts throughout the Province of Punjab and the Federal Territory of Islamabad have been abolished goes to prove that the respondent had no intention of committing any unfair labour practice as all the duty clerks whether they belong to the union or the other unions have been effected.

7. The respondent has posted an officer preferably the Assistant Traffic Manager to assign duties to the Conductors on buses and they can be assisted by some Junior Clerk to maintain the files and ledgers. It has also been stated that the duties of the junior clerks shall also rotate and this step has been taken by the respondent to curb any tendency of corruption on the part oaf the junior clerks. It has also been stated that the petitioners shall continue to get the same pay and allowances and their terms and conditions of service have not therefore, been adversely effected in any manner whatsoever. Even otherwise the incumbents working against the post of times checkers, time‑keepers and booking clerks have a joint seniority within the traffic cadre and the posts are transferable in rotation as duty clerks in the depots for a period of one month at a time. I agree with the learned Counsel for, the respondent that even if the posts of duty clerks were not abolished, the petitioners could not claim their posting as duty clerks on permanent basis.

8. I agree with the learned Counsel for the respondent that the provisions of Standing Orders 12 (3) and 13 are not attracted as these Standing Orders deal with termination of employment and retrenchment whereas the petitioners have neither been removed from employment nor they have been retrenched. In view of the above discussions, I find that the petitions are not maintainable and the same are dismissed. The status quo orders are recalled.

A.A.

Petitions 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.