' IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, J.---. This petition has been filed challenging the letters/orders dated 24-7- 2009 and 10-9-2010 ordering transfer of applications from the Presiding Officer of Authority, under the Payment of Wages Act at Mirpurkhas to the Presiding Officer at Hyderabad, being without lawful authority and is in violation of the principles of natural justice.
2. Briefly stated the facts as they appear, the petitioners were the employees of the Digri Sugar Mills Limited, (respondent No,4) and after tendering their resignations they filed application under section 15 of the Payment of Wages, Act 1936 (the Act) before the respondent No,3, seeking direction against the respondent No,4 to clear their dues. The respondent No,3 issued notice to the respondent No,4. In the meantime, when the proceedings were pending, the petitioners came to know that their matter has been transferred from the Presiding Officer Mirpurkhas to the Presiding Officer at Hyderabad. Being aggrieved with the said transfer the present petition has been filed.
3. Miss Nasim Abbasi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the respondents have violated the principle of Audi Aleram Partem, and have transferred the matter without providing opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. As per the learned counsel, the transfer of the matter has prejudiced the petitioners as it was incumbent upon the said respondents to have first served a notice of such transfer upon the petitioners to enable them to file their objections, if any. As per the learned counsel, the principles of natural justice have been violated and the said transfer be declared without lawful authority and be annulled being totally uncalled for.
4. Mr. Vizarat Hussain Zaidi, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No,4 has submitted at the very outset that the present petition is not maintainable, as the petitioners filed applications under section 15 of the Act, which are pending adjudication, hence the present petition firstly is premature and secondly if the petitioners are aggrieved with the said transfer order made by the competent authority the proper remedy for the petitioners was to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the respondent No,4 has relied upon the decisions reported as PLD 1991 SC 385, 1986 SCM R 959, 1981 PLC 561, PLD 1979 Kar. 725 and PLD 2004 Kar.
620.
The learned Additional A.-G. While supporting the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondent No,4, has submitted that this petition was misconceived and premature, as proper remedy was available to the petitioners under the law and they may be directed to approach the appropriate forum in this regard,
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record as well as the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the respondent No,4.
7. Record reveals that the petitioners filed applications under section 15 of the Act before the competent authority at Mirpurkhas. However, it is claimed that due to the indifferent attitude of the respondent No,3 on application filed by the respondent No,4, the matter was transferred from competent authority at Mirpurkhas to Hyderabad where the matter is still. Pending adjudication.
8. We have also noted that the competent authority which has transferred the applications of the petitioners from Mirpurkhas to Hyderabad was conscious of the fact that this transfer might cause some inconvenience to the petitioners and has thus, in this regard, specifically ordered the respondent No,4 shall bear the travelling expenses of the petitioners, as is evident from the said transfer letter/order, which fact also has not been denied by the counsel representing the petitioners.
9. We also find ourselves to be in agreement with the contentions raised by the leaned counsel for the respondents that if there is an alternate remedy is available under law, the petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 would not lie. A reference in this regard may be made to the case of Allah Ditta v. Ijaz Hussain (1986 SCM R 959), wherein the honourable apex Court observed as under.- "Accordingly, we are of the opinion that if in any case the High Court considers that a writ petition should not be entertained on account of the failure of an aggrieved party to avail of another adequate remedy such a decision is not only entirely legitimate but is indeed in furtherance of the intendment of Article 199 of the Constitution."
10. When a question was asked from the learned counsel for the petitioners that whether alternative remedy is available to the petitioners under the relevant provisions of the Act, she replied in affirmative, however, submitted that no opportunity was provided to the petitioners before the said transfer letters/orders, hence the present petition has been filed. We do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. All the pleas which have been taken by her in these proceedings, could be taken before the appropriate forum.
11. In view of the principle laid down by the honourable Supreme Court that when there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioners, writ would not lie this petition is accordingly dismissed in limini with the directions that the petitioners may avail the alternative remedy, available to them under the law.
' Above are the reasons for our short order dated 7-12-2010, whereby we have dismissed the instant petition.