NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CO. (PAK.) LTD. Versus S. ABID HUSSAIN

DECISION

This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 22‑11‑1987, passed by the Sindh Labour Court No. V at Karachi who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969, directing the appellant establishment to report the respondent in the Head Office with consequential benefits.

2. Brief facts of the case were that the respondent claimed to have been appointed in the appellant establishment in the year 1975 and thereafter promoted to the post of Assistant Supervisor (Electrical) in the year 1977. Though, the case of the respondent had a long chequered history and a series of litigation up to the stage of Supreme Court, yet, the respondent claimed that as a result of the last litigation, he was posted at the Head Office and had worked there for 8 months to the entire satisfaction of his superior and was looking after the work of electrical maintenance and air‑conditioning. Further, the respondent claimed that in spite of his performance of the duty to the most satisfaction, the appellants establishment still mustered grudge against him as a result of previous litigations and wanted to oust him from the service and as such, vide order, dated 29‑6‑1986, his services were mala fidely transferred from Head Office to Pakistan Insurance Building Project, Lalazar, Karachi. Being aggrieved, the respondent had served upon the appellants establishment his grievance notice followed by the present grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969.

3. The appellant establishment resisted the present petition of the respondent by admitting all the facts of the previous litigations in between them, but, had resisted the claim of the appellant that he was transferred from Head Office to a project office in Karachi with mala fide intentions to oust him from the employment as a revenge on account of his previous litigations, and had submitted that in fact there was no work of Electric Supervisor at Head Office, therefore, his services were transferred in routine of day to day business of the employer. It' was also claimed by the appellants establishment that as the respondent was not legally entitled to maintain his present grievance petition, therefore, it was also liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties filed the respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Sher Afgan, the learned Advocate for the appellants establishment and Mr. Suleman Habibullah, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case as well as the written arguments filed on behalf of both the parties. At the very outset I would observe here that it is a well‑settled principle of Law that the management employer had the prerogative to transfer its any employee from one place to another place and so, the respondent was bound by the terms and conditions of his employment. However, Mr. Suleman Habibullah the learned Advocate for the respondent has contended that in view of the relations in between the respondent and the applicants management on account of long litigations, there was a mala fide and malice in the transfer order of the respondent from Head Office to a Project Office at Karachi. In support of his contentions he had placed reliance on 1966 PLC at page 488, 1961 PLC at page 449; 1962 PLC at page 1345; 1975 PLC page 31 and 1976 PLC page 664. After careful perusal of these authorities, I am of the view that in these cases the allegation of malice and mala fide was proved fact, but, in the present case this evidence is somewhat lacking. It is an admitted fact that there had been a series of litigations between the respondent and the management. In the interest of justice, I would consider it proper and reasonable to remand, this case to the learned Labour Court to allow both the parties proper opportunity to lead further evidence so that it should determine malice, beyond hilt, within three months of this order.

6. For the reasons discussed by me above I would set aside the impugned order and would accordingly remand the present case to the learned Labour Court with the above observation.

A.E./1297/Lb.S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Case remanded.