HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION EMPLOYEES' UNION PUNJAB (REGD.), CBA, LAHORE Versus G.M. HBFC, LAHORE ZONE

ORDER

The petitioner seeks setting aside of his transfer order dated 23-1-1991, that the petitioner union is not only a registered trade union but also a duly certified Collective Bargaining Agent for the areas of Punjab including its Lahore and Faisalabad Districts and the General Secretary of the Union is competent to file this petition on behalf of the CBA union which has locus standi to represent the workers in general for enforcement of guaranteed and secured right and this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain, adjudicate and decide this petition because the workers of Punjab to whom petitioner union represents are being victimised by way of transfer to other provinces during the pendency of industrial dispute and the respondents are committing unfair labour practice; and that the petitioners union has served a demand notice dated 5-11-1990 (Annexure `A') on the respondents who did not accept any demand hence a strike notice on 3-12-1990 (Annexure `B'), has been served under section 26 of the IRO, 1969 and the conciliation proceedings are pending before the Conciliator Government of Punjab, 6-A Canal Park, Lahore who has summoned the respondent No. 2 in person for 28-1-1991 vide Annexure `C', and the strike period has been extended till 4-2-1991; and that during the pendency of industrial dispute the respondents are changing the service conditions of the workers posted in Punjab and especially the members and office-bearers of the petitioner CBA union and other trade unions by way of transfer etc. hence this petition; and that on 22-1-1991 at about 10 a.m. the respondent No. 1, called the petitioner in his office and in the presence of General Secretary and other office-bearers asked him and other active members of the petitioner union including its Vice-President to withdraw demand notice from the Conciliator and not to press demands and to make settlement according to respondents' good wishes as directed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to respondent No. 1, on telephone but the members and office- bearers of the petitioner union including other trade unions refused to obey this illegal order of the respondents therefore, a threat of dire consequences including transfer to far flung areas of Peshawar, D.I. Khan, Mardan, Bannu, Kohat and Sawat etc. was given and as a result thereof the impugned transfer order No. HBFC/HOK/PS/P&T-1/440, dated 23-1-1991, Annexure `D' has been passed in contravention and violation of section 15(1-d) of the IRO, 1969; and that the impugned transfer order dated 23-1-1991 is improper, illegal, against law and natural justice, based on conjectures and surmises, and not on true facts is liable to be set aside being based on victimization and unfair labour practice on the following among other grounds:--

(a) that the impugned transfer order is against the law and facts, hence liable to be set aside;

(b) that the impugned transfer order has been passed in violation of section 15(1-d) of the IRO, 1969 because the persons who have been ordered to be transferred are active members and office-bearers of the trade union and take part in its formation, promotion and activities being Mr. Sajjad Haider, Vice-Chairman of the petitioner CBA Union who is being sent to Bannu, Mr. Tahir Jahan Khan its Vice-President who is being sent to Mansehara and Mr. Din Muhammad is the Chairman of Staff Union who is being transferred to D.I. Khan and others are active members of CBA Union who are being sent to Peshawar, Mardan, Abbottabad, Kohat, Multan, Sawat etc. which proves the mala fides and bad intention of the respondents. It is relevant to mention here that activities and scope of the petitioner union is restricted within the area of Punjab only and if they are transferred to other Provinces they will lose their membership and their trade union activities will be adversely affected; and

(c) that no reason has been given to pass the impugned transfer order but it has been done only to victimise the- members and office-bearers of trade unions in Punjab although the staff in Sindh and other Provinces is excess but they are not being transferred because the respondents are partonising them hence the impugned order being based on discrimination is unfair labour practice under section 15(1-c) of the IRO, 1969; and

(d) that the principle of first come last go has not been maintained in passing the impugned transfer order because the persons with more stay than the persons being transferred are posted in the Zones but are not being transferred whereas the persons with lesser stay are being transferred which is against the decision of this Commission; and

(e) that there is a prohibitory order against the respondents on the petition of petitioner Union against, victimisation which is being violated and during stay in case of Shamshad etc. v. 14BFC etc. fixed on 29-1-1991 the impugned order has been passed which is clear-cut contempt of this Commission and violation of section 22-C of the IRO, 1969 hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside; and

(f) that the impugned transfer order has been passed during the pendency of industrial dispute therefore it is in violation of section 47 of the IRO, 1969 hence liable to be set aside; and

(g) that the impugned order has been passed by an incompetent person hence liable to be set aside; and

(h) that the impugned transfer order has not been acted upon as yet because no handing over/taking over or relieving/joining has taken place and the impugned order has not yet been served.

2. On the other hand the respondents have denied all the allegations of the petitioner and have taken the stand that the persons who have been transferred have been so transferred in accordance with the memo. of settlement dated 10-4-1990, and that the question of less or more stay at the place from where transfer is made is irrelevant, and that even the provisions of section 47 of the IRO, 1969 are not attracted to the transfer order dated 23-1-1991, as by it conditions of service have not been changed.

3. Arguments have been heard.

4. When industrial dispute is pending and impugned transfer order is in respect of office-bearers and active members of the trade union which is CBA and 'to transfer them and to create any hitch in the participation of the proceedings is nothing but pressurising them simply because of their activities of trade union, which is unfair labour practice within the meaning of section 15(1)(d)(ii) of the IRO. The impugned order is full of it.

5. The arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents that less or more stay is not relevant in the matter of transfer is also not sound. It becomes relevant when a worker is victimised by making him deprived of his lawful right to stay at a place to participate in lawful proceedings within his right under the law as is in this case.

6. For the above reasons the petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside with no order as to costs.

H.B.T./172/N.I.R.C. Petition allowed.