Haq Bahu Sugar Mills (Pvt.) Limited vs Muhammad Hanif, etc.
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through a civil petition for leave to appeal converted into an appeal, filed by Haq Bahu Sugar Mills (Pvt.) Limited against Muhammad Hanif. The core legal question revolved around whether an employee has a vested right to remain posted on a specific machine after the abolition of his original post, and whether his transfer to another machine following the abolition of his post was unlawful or mala fide. The Supreme Court held that the employee had no vested right to remain posted as an operator of a particular machine, and that the lower forums erred in finding the transfer mala fide based on dates of post abolition. The Court laid down the principle that an employer may adjust an employee to an alternative duty to prevent retrenchment upon the abolition of a post, and an employee cannot unreasonably refuse such adjustment.
- Does an employee have a vested right to remain posted on a specific machine after his post is abolished?
- Whether an employer's decision to assign an alternative duty to an employee to avoid retrenchment is justified when the original post is abolished?
- Can an employee refuse to operate an alternative machine on the ground of lack of training when offered to prevent retrenchment?
ORDER
' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J. -- We have heard the Manager Administration of the petitioner- Company. He states that the learned forums below have fallen in error by holding that the respondent was employed to operate the planner machine or shaper machine but he had been directed to operate a drilling machine. One of the reasons given by the Labour Court and Appellate Court for deciding in favour of the respondent was that the order transferring the respondent to the drilling machine was mala fide because the post of operator planner machine was abolished on 07.06.2011 but the respondent was transferred from that post on 02.06.2011. It is contended that this is an erroneous assumption because the post of operator planner machine was abolished on 01.06.2011 and thereafter on humanitarian grounds and in order not to retrench the respondent, re was asked to work on the drilling machine, which he refused to do. It is contended that the above aspects of the case have not been considered by the forums below.
2. We have also heard the respondent Muhammad Hanif, who is insistent that he has no training for running a drilling machine. He must be kept to operate the planner machine and shaper machine.
This is not a reasonable stance. Furthermore, we note that the learned Appellate Court had fallen in error when it came to the conclusion that the post of operator planner machine was abolished on 07.06.2011 but the respondent was transferred from the post on 02.06.2011. In actual fact, the said post was abolished on 01.06.2011. Even if the post has been abolished on 02.06.2011, there is no vested right in the respondent to remain posted as an operator to the planner machine or sharper machine.
3. In the foregoing circumstances, this Civil Petition is converted into appeal and is allowed.