Find a Lawyer

Case No. 24(296) of 1986, decided on 20th January, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 15‑‑Unfair labour practice‑‑Transfer of employee at his own request, held, would not amount to unfair labour practice‑‑Transfer from one ace to another to effect economy would be justifiable not giving rise to unfair labour practice on part of employer.

‑‑‑S. 15‑‑Unfair labour practice‑‑Transfer of employee affecting vested right‑‑While employer would have prerogative to pick and choose staff for transfer same, held, would not affect vested right of employee‑ Transfer against a Tower past would lead to apprehension that same had been made on account of Trade Union activities of employee‑‑Where transfer would affect status of employee as 'workman, depriving such employee of vested right, such transfer could be regarded as unfair labour practice on part of employer.

M.G. Sadullah Mumtaz for Petitioner.

Kh. Muhammad Naeem for Respondent.

Petitioner Sultan Ahmad alleges that ha was appointed as a Reporter on 26‑11‑1984, and later promoted as special correspondent in the Associated Press of Pakistan, Islamabad. He is an active trade unionist and heads a group called Sultan Group in the A.P.P. Employees Union the C. B. A. The another group called Adil Group is allegedly patronised by the management. The petitioner was elected President of the Union in 1975, but he was transferred and posted at Nepal as Special Correspondent. He was not given the benefits admissible on which he returned and resigned under protest and also represented against discrimination due to Trade Union activities. His representation was accepted in 1982, giving him continuity of service, ‑ but the management started addressing him as News Editor against which his representations are pending.

2. The petitioner allegedly contested the Presidential elections of the Union but lost by one vote in 1984 and by two votes in 1985 when his panel of candidates succeeded in being elected to 7 out of 11 offices of the Union. The petitioner was shown at serial No. 11 in the seniority list of .1983. This was revised in 1984 and his name was shown of Sr. No.30. He has represented on which, decision is pending. The petitioner was allegedly transferred' from Rawalpindi to Islamabad when he resumed duty on 1st October, 1985, he was transferred to Bahawalpur on the 2nd October, 1985. The order advised him to put Bahawalpur office in proper shape, secure commercial as well as news subscribers. The motive for transfer is to wreck the Sultan Group of the Union headed by him and thus, the transfer was made on account of petitioner's Trade Union activities.

3. The prayer is that the respondent be directed to suspend the operation of the transfer order pending for final decision. of the main petition.

4. I have gone through the record and heard the arguments of the counsel.

5. According to record produced before me, it is incorrect that the petitioner was transferred to Nepal due to Trade Union activities. In fact, he had himself applied for being appointed at Nepal.

6. As for the transfer from Rawalpindi to Islamabad the record shows that it was decided to transfer some of the staff to Islamabad to effect economy. This transfer if at all it could be so called, was apparently not affected due to Trade Union activities.

7. As for the transfer to Bahawalpur the respondents stated that he is the most eligible person' because he will save his present expenditure of about Rs.800 per month on living in a hotel as a house was to be provided by the employer. In any case transfer was the right of the employer as held in a case reported as 1980 P L C 865 and although he ' held no office yet even being An office‑bearer of a Union constituted no bar or hindrance to that right as held in 1981 PLC 287. Further, Bahawalpur was a town growing in importance where the posting of a man of his calibre was required.

8. The petitioner states that he was being transferred due to victimization on account of Trade Union activities to Bahawalpur. There were 7 other Chief Correspondents. The reason why he was being singled out for being sent to Bahawalpur, where not even a Special Correspondent had ever been posted is that the management wants him to be away from the Union whose elections he wanted to contest even this year It was urged that at Bahawalpur he would head a mechanic and Naib Qasid, while he was a grade I Journalist according to the seniority list circulated by the respondents themselves.

9. An affidavit submitted by respondents bears out this fact. It also shows that Sukkur, Hyderabad, Multan, Quetta and Faisalabad were headed by Branch Managers and not by Journalists Grade‑I.

10. The learned counsel for the respondents states that it is the employers prerogative to pick and choose staff for transfer. I do agree with this contention but provided those transferred do not lose their vested rights. By being transferred as Branch Manager the petitioner who is a Journalist Grade‑I would lose his status as workman, and become employer without having any promotion or benefit been conferred on him. The transfer even otherwise appears to have been made against a lower post which prima facie leads to an apprehension that it has been made on account of Trade Union activities of the petitioner.

11. I consequently confirm my order till the pendency of the main petition which shall come up for petitioner's evidence on a date to be fixed by office.

A. A. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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