' CH. SHAUKAT NAWAZ GORAYA (MEMBER).---I intend to decide point in controversy in all above titled three petitions together with this single order as matter in issue is same in these petitions and they are interlinked.
2. The petitioners have assailed their impugned respective transfer orders by means of these petitions filed under section 25(8)(g) read with section 17 of IRA, 2008. It has been contended that they are active trade unionists and respondents have turned against them due to their lawful trade union activities. In order to deprive them from taking part and casting their votes in the internal election, the impugned transfer orders have been passed. These orders are illegal, discriminatory, void, without lawful authority and amount to committing of unfair labour practice. Along with the main petitions applications for issuance of temporary injunction were filed.
3. These petitions and stay applications were vehemently contested by the respondents. Inter alia many preliminary objections were raised. However, much stress was laid down on two preliminary objections. Firstly that petitions are not maintainable on the ground that in terms of Regulation 32(2)(c) of the NIRC (P&F) Regulations, 1973 the Commission has been vested with powers to restrain or prohibit any act likely to be committed and not suspend any act which has already been committed. Therefore, the petitions as well as stay applications are liable to be dismissed as admittedly according to the pleadings of the petitioners their impugned transfer orders have already been passed. Moreover powers to grant status quo ante even otherwise is neither available nor can be allowed. Secondly it was alleged that petitioners are officers of Grade-III and Grade-II respectively. They are responsible for supervision of all DR/CR vouchers, Call Deposits, Security Deposits, Incharge of Security Stationery, Office Stationery, Checking all daily transactions/reports/receipts/payment books, therefore, they are performing managerial nature of duties as officers and cannot be termed as workmen under the labour laws. Hence petitions cannot proceed.
4. I heard arguments on the point of maintainability and stay applications of the learned counsel for the parties and perused relevant record.
5. It is well settled proposition of law that NIRC was empowered under Regulation 32(2) to restrain doing of an act which constituted an unfair labour practice but it was not vested with such powers if unfair labour practice had already been committed.' In the instant cases the Commission by suspending the operation of the impugned transfer orders preserved the position prevailing on the day of passing of the interim injunctions. The petitioners had not relinquished the charge of their posts neither they had joined the transferred places. Meaning thereby the impugned transfer orders had not been implemented. Under the circumstances it cannot be said that unfair labour practice had already been committed. Moreover, the stay applications have also been filed under section 25(9)(c) of IRA, 2008 therefore, this preliminary objection cannot prove fatal to the petitions and stay applications. The case law which was relied upon in this respect is not attracted to the facts of the instant petitions.
6.. The second preliminary objection that petitioners performing managerial work although having no power of hire and fire but nature of duties performed by them appear to be managerial in nature. Therefore, these employees would not fall within the ambit of term workmen. It will not be out of place to mention here that same issue in a connected case that whether Officers of Grade-II and Ill fall within the ambit of workmen or not is sub judice before the honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore therefore, I refrain from giving my verdict in this respect.
7. It has been contended by petitioners that the impugned transfer orders were passed in order to restrain them from taking part and casting their votes in the local election therefore, unfair labour practice was committed against them. It is alleged that their names were not included in the voters lists but thereafter same was done on the orders of honourable Lahore High Court Lahore.
Admittedly the local election was held on 12-12-2009 and petitioners were allowed to cast their votes and they exercised their right and voted for the candidates of their choice. Under the circumstances the very ground on which alleged unfair labour practice was committed against them did not remain available to them after the election.
8. It has been contended that respondents became inimical towards the petitioners due to their lawful trade union activities. The allegation that petitioners are active members of the union and were persuaded by the respondents to quit their lawful trade union activities and also their membership of the union and when they refused to do so they were victimized by the respondents, does not prove the case of the petitioners particularly when they failed to specifically mention the persons who pressurized them or quote any specific instance of lawful trade union activities. Mere wild and bald allegations of unfair labour practice are not sufficient to prove victimization and make amenable for interference by the Commission because no exact date and time when the respondents have given them the threats has been mentioned. In this regard reliance is placed in 2003 PLC 344.
9. It is prerogative of the employer to utilize the services of his employees at best suited places and transfer of an employee is one of the basic rights of the employer which is always exercised in the better performance and interest of the establishment and same cannot be snatched away. In this regard reliance is placed in 1996. PLC page 100.
10. In the light of what has been stated above, it is held that this Commission has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon these petitions and stay applications. However, after the local election of the union which was held on, 12-12-2009 no ground or cause of action remained available to the petitioners against respondents. The petitions have become infructuous therefore, the petitions and stay applications cannot proceed. Hence dismissed accordingly. There is no order as to costs.