1986 PLC(CS) 1124

The decision, dated 26‑6‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.6, Rawalpindi has been challenged whereby the order of transfer of the respondent from Rawalpindi to Lala Musa was set aside and declared as mala fide and without authority.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that on 5‑3‑1984 the order of suspension of the respondent was put to an end and he was re‑instated and on 7‑3‑1984 he was transferred to Lala Musa but, according to the judgment of the learned lower Court the transfer order was passed on 23‑2‑1984 during the continuation of suspension. The respondent had been kept in suspension on account of the fact that an enquiry was pending against him for beating Muhammad Siddique, Foreman. On the completion of the enquiry the respondent was re‑instated because the allegations had not been proved. This is true that the employer can transfer an employee, but transfer out of the city in which the employee is residing may be ordered when it is necessary in the exigency of service. It has not been shown that the transfer of the respondent was necessary. The respondent admittedly is a low paid worker and the transfer is highly inconvenient, costly prejudical to him. The motive of the transfer is obviously that the case could not be proved against him he, thus, could not be removed from service. Even according to Rule 507 of the Personnel Manual, Volume I the transfer was uncalled for. According to the said para. the staff working in Pay p Scale 1 to 4 could not be normally transferred but where the transfer is unavoidable approval of the Divisional Superintendent is to be obtained if the stay is less than five years. There is nothing on the record to show that approval of the Divisional Superintendent was taken. The learned lower Court has thus rightly held that the transfer was ordered by incompetent authority. The case of the appellant stands proved by the statement of R.W.2. He stated that the Divisional Engineer and Assistant Electrical Engineer were competent to transfer the respondent whereas the Personnel Office had passed the impugned transfer order.

3. 29‑4‑1985 was the date fixed for the arguments but the respondent did not appear, therefore, the appeal was argued ex parte.

4. As a result of the observations made above, the appeal is dismissed ex parte.

A. E. ???

Appeal dismissed.