1. ' In 1978 in Pakistan Tobacco Industries Limited, Mandra, there were two registered Trade Unions namely, Peoples Labour Union (respondent No, 2) and P. T. I. Mazdoor Union (appellant). The respondent-Union submitted an application under section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the Registrar for certifying it as C. B. A. Since the other Union i,e, the present appellant- Union, did not indicate its desire to be the contestant in the secret ballot to be held for determining the C. B. A., the Registrar vide Certificate No, R. W. P./18/78/8108 dated 18-11-1978. (Exh. P-1) certified under subsection (9-a) of section 22 the respondent-Union as C. B. A. In the establishment with effect from 2-11-1978. This certificate was conveyed to the respondent Union through letter No, 8108 dated 18-11-1978 (Exh. P-2). In this letter it is mentioned that the respondent-Union would remain C.
2. B. A. For two years with effect from 2-11-1978 under subsection (9-a) of section 22.
2. On 10-11-1979 i,e, before the expiry of the period of two years of the respondent-Union being the C.
3. B. A., the present appellant-Union filed an application before registrar to hold a referendum for the determination of the C. B. A. In the.. Establishment. On this application the Registrar issued aI notice to the General Secretary of the respondent-Union, who gave his consent to hold the said referendum. Accordingly, a joint meeting was held on 29-11-1979 in which both the General Secretaries of the two Unions participated in the meeting and the programme for the said referendum was prepared. Final voters list was also prepared and this list was supplied to both the Unions and a date for holding the referendum was fixed as 12-12-1979. Accordingly, after complying with necessary formalities, a referendum was held on 12-12-1979 in which the appellant-Union secured 370 votes, while the respondent Union polled 237 votes. Consequently, the Registrar vide letter No, RTU/PR/79/3621 dated 6-12-1979 addressed to the respondent-Union (Exh. P-2) deleted the words "for a period of two years" existing in the third line of his earlier Letter No, 1808 dated 18-11- 1978 (Exh. P-2), from the date of issuance. The result was that the respondent-Union eased to be the C. B. A. In the establishment and instead the appellant-Union acquired that status". Whom they should have full confidence and it was only for this purpose that they had transferred the petitioner to Kohat. He further submitted that the petitioner had failed to mention all the details in the complaint. He quoted a number of rulings to show that the office-bearer's transfer was held valid and that being an office-bearer of a Union did not preclude him from being transferred. He argued that the complainant was a treasurer of an industry-wise Trade Union and he could very well take part in Union activities at Kohat. The complainant was a treasurer in the Union and not the General Secretary and was not a source of trouble to the respondent and there was, therefore, no reason for the respondent to get rid of this employee.
4. ' I find that the complainant banded over the complete charge of the establishment section on 23- 7-80 and submitted a note to the Administrative Officer about. He subsequently on that very day wrote a letter to the Administrative Officer for a clearance certificate as it was necessary keeping in view that the present transfer and his behaviour. The complainant had earlier on 22-7-80 addressed the Administrative Officer that he was treasurer of the Union and was required to hand over the charge and as such he should be allowed three days and thereafter he would abide by his lawful orders.
5. ' I find that the complainant had actually handed over the complete charge of the establishment on 23-7-80 and signed an application on that very day but delivered the same in the Commission on 24-7-80. He had, therefore,- concealed the fact that he had already handed over the charge of his post. The complainant had not submitted any incident to prove that the respondent has been committing acts of Unfair labour practice which culminated in his transfer to Kohat. As has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent he is only a treasurer in the Union and is not required to discuss Union demands with the Management or to correspond with respondent and as such he was not at all a source trouble to them. His transfer is only a routine transfer and the Management had the right to transfer any person whom they considered suitable for appointment at the projects. This right of the Management was inherent and for the simple reason that there were persons junior or senior to him the respondent has committed an act of unfair labour practice is not tenable. The complainant has failed to make out any case of unfair labour practice and I.
6. Therefore, dismiss the complaint and vacate the stay order dated 26th of July, 1980.