IMDAD HUSSAIN Versus ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, GAMMON PAKISTAN LTD.

ORDER

1. This complaint has been filed by Mr. Imdad Hussain Treasurer, Gammon Pakistan Limited Employees' Union, Rawalpindi under section 15 read with section 53 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. It has been submitted that the Union is registered as an industry‑wise Trade Union with the National Industrial Relations Commission and has also been determined as C. B. A. for the establishments of Gammon Pakistan Limited. According to him the Union got the Workers Participation Fund established through the intervention of the Federal Government in this organisation with great difficulty; but the Management got a stay order from the Lahore High Court against the payment of Rs. 25 lacs towards this Fund. He has further submitted that the Management have been planning to crush the Union and have issued charge sheets to three office‑bearers and one active member in July, 1980. The accused was not satisfied with these charge‑sheets and has transferred the complainant from Rawalpindi to Kohat although several senior clerks in the Head Office are employed but he has been transferred on account of his being an office‑bearer of the C. B. A. Union. He has prayed that the accused be punished according to law.

2. The learned counsel for the respondent raised certain preliminary objections on the complaint. He submitted that the petitioner had not disclosed facts relevant to the case as his services were transferrable any wherein Pakistan. The petitioner was employed as Senior Clerk and there was an immediate need of an experienced clerk at Kohat and his transfer was therefore, merely because of exigencies of service and for no other reason. It has also been submitted that the petitioner had also handed over charge and undertook to report for duty at Kohat on July 26, 1980 and ‑had raised no objection to his transfer at the relevant time. He had requested for three days joining time to enable him to hand over charge of the Union accounts. As to the establishment of Workers Participation Fund it was submitted by the respondent that this fund was initiated by the Federal Government in May, 1974 when the petitioner was not an employee of the company. The Fund was established in February, 1978 and up to that time the petitioner had not become an office‑bearer of the Union. It has been denied that the company had got a stay order from the Lahore High Court for payment of Rs. 25 lacs and that the Union itself was delaying decision of this case due to non‑appearance. The Management had entered into a series of settlements after the Federal Government's decision to extend the workers Participation Act to the Company. It has also been submitted that the demand notice has been submitted to thwart the disciplinary proceedings pending against the Senior Accounts Assistant with gross misconduct. It was also denied that they had been trying to crush the Union. The respondent also denied that charge‑sheets had been issued to the employees' excepting Mr. Numan Nayyer for habitual late attendance.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Management had the right to transfer their employees but the transfer should be bona fide and not mala fide. He admitted that the complainant had handed over the charge on 23‑7‑80 and that the case was filed with the Commission on 24‑7‑80. He stated that there were three Senior Clerks and one Junior Clerk in the organisation and there was no rationale about the transfer of the complainant as either his junior on his senior should have been transferred. He further submitted that senior clerk had never been posted at the projects and because the petitioner was an office‑bearers of the Union he was transferred to Kohat.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner's services were transferable anywhere in Pakistan and he will get Rs. 150 per month chore in his pay. He will continue to work at Kohat till the project is over which is likely to take 18 months. He submitted that it was a very sensitive project and they wanted to post a very experience clerk in whom they should have full confidence and it was only for this purpose that they bad transferred the petitioner to Kohat. He further submitted that the petitioner had failed to mention all the details in the complaint. He quoted a number of rulings to show that the office‑bearer's transfer was held valid and that being an office‑bearer of a Union did not preclude him from being transferred. He argued that the complainant was a treasurer of an industry‑wise Trade Union and he could very well take part in Union activities at Kohat. The complainant was a treasurer in the Union and not the General Secretary and was not a source of trouble to the respondent and there was, therefore, no reason for the respondent to get rid of this employee.

5. I find that the complainant handed over the complete charge of the establishment section on 23‑7‑80 and submitted a note to the Administrative Officer about. He subsequently on that very day wrote a letter to the Administrative Officer for a clearance certificate as it was necessary keeping in view that the present transfer and his behaviour. The complainant had earlier on 22‑7‑80 addressed the Administrative Officer that he was treasurer of the Union and was required to hand over the charge and as such he should be allowed three days and thereafter he would abide by his lawful orders.

6. I find that the complainant had actually handed over the complete charge of the establishment on 23‑7‑80 and signed an application on that very day but delivered the same in the Commission on 24‑7‑80. He had, therefore concealed the fact that he had already handed over the charge of his post. The complainant had not submitted any incident to prove that the respondent has been committing acts of Unfair labour practice which culminated in his transfer to Kohat. As has been submitted by the learner: counsel for the respondent he is only a treasurer in the Union and is not required to discuss Union demands with the Management or to correspond with respondent and as such he was not at all a source trouble to them. His transfer is only a routine transfer and the Management had the right to transfer any person whom they considered suitable for appointment at the A projects. This right of the Management was inherent and for the simple, reason that there were persons junior or senior to him the respondent had committed an act of unfair labour practice is not tenable. The complainant has failed to make out any case of unfair labour practice and I, therefore, dismiss the complaint and vacate the stay order dated 26th of July, 1980.

7. Appeal dismissed.