Abdul Jamal Nasir petitioner has filed the above captioned petition stating therein that he is permanent employee of Respondent No, 1 Company since 4.1.1988 as Head Operator under the Respondent No, 2 at their Factory situated at Daharki, District Ghotki Sindh. As he being the General Secretary of CBA union namely Engro Fertilizers Ltd. Employees Union always discharged the trade union activities in the interest of workers strictly in accordance with law and constitution of the union and as such the negotiations so undertaken on the charter of demands (industrial dispute) were culminated into signing of a settlement on 31.05.2013. But thereafter a dispute arose when the Respondent No, 2 refused to release the Annual Increment to certain workers including him despite the fact that written order of its grant had been issued but the same was with-held malafidely and deliberately by not including in the salary of July 2013, for the release of which he requested in writing to the Respondent No, 2 but the request was not acceded to rather threats of dire consequences were issued and the respondents started harassment including threats of transfer to him and other workers, and thereafter were compelled to vacate the residential accommodation which acts of the respondent's management amount to the commission of unfair labour practice on the part of the respondents. Looking to the situation he (petitioner and others) had no option except to approach the Bench of NIRC at Karachi with a Petition No, 4A(129)/2013-K 24(132)/2013-K and in the said case an order of status quo dated 7.10.2013 was passed. But when he (Petitioner) reported for duty on 09.10.2013, he was not allowed to join the duties by the management of Respondent No, 2 and on his persistent requests he was supplied with a copy of transfer order dated 07.10.2013, apparently prepared in back date whereby he was transferred from Daharki to Zerkez Plant at Karachi, which transfer in the given circumstances, in the manner and fashion was made with malafides, highly discriminative, illegal and improper whereby the respondents intended to circumvent and overcome the trade union activities and to teach a memorable lesson for his independent trade union activities, hence the impugned order dated 07.10.2013 read with order dated 24.12.2013 i,e, notice for vacation of house No, D-21 (in occupation of the petitioner) being illegal malafide and based on acts of unfair labour practice on the part of the respondents may be set-aside and the respondents management may also be restrained from stopping any existing benefits/facilities to the petitioner and his family members, and also deducting his wages.
2. Alongwith main petition an ad-interim injunction application (CMA.No, 24(15)/2014-K) has also been moved praying that pending the decision of the main petition under Sections 31 and 33 of IRA, 2012 the operation of impugned orders dated 07.10.2013 and 24.12.2013 may be suspended and the respondents be also restrained from doing any further adverse action against the petitioner.
3. On the other hand respondents put in reply statement to the main petition and also rejoinder to CMA and resisted the same by saying that admittedly Case No, 4A(129)/2013-K/24(132)/2013-K titled Ghulam Hussain and four others is pending before the Bench of the Commission at Karachi in which a stay order directing parties to maintain status quo was passed, and the present petitioner is Petitioner No, 3 in the said case, as such the instant petition suffers from multiplicity of proceedings on the same cause of action and is therefore liable to be dismissed. It has also been contended by the respondents that impugned transfer order has already been implemented/complied with and acted upon and the petitioner has been marking attendance at the transfer location Zarghez Plant, Port Qasim, Karachi since 14th October 2013, as is evident from the daily attendance sheet, as such he has no cause of action to file the instant petition. Lastly, the petition being barred by time and not maintainable and also the petitioner having no cause of action and locus standi to file, dismissal of the same has been prayed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with their able assistance.
5. Admittedly a case Bearing No, 4A(129)/2013-K/24(132)/ 2013-K was filed by the petitioner and three others alleging unfair labour practice on the part of the respondents before Mr. Bashir Ahmed Memon the then Member of the Bench of NIRC at Karachi, in which as stated an order directing the parties to maintain status-quo was passed. In the instant case the petitioner has impugned orders dated 07.10.2013 and 24.12.2013 passed by the respondents. Instead of moving an application for initiation of proceedings for violation of the order of status-quo as alleged, the petitioner has filed the instant petition on the same cause of action which suffers from multiplicity of proceedings and on this count alone is not proceed able. Further as is evident from the record the transfer order dated 07.10.2013 filed as Annexure 'A' by the petitioner has already been implemented, complied with and acted upon and as per attendance sheet filed by the respondents as Annexure R-3 and the copy of the duty report signed and submitted by the petitioner at the transfer location (Annexure R/3a), the petitioner is performing his duty at the transfer location and is marking his attendance there, as such he has got no cause of action or locus standi to file the instant petition. It is pertinent to note that by concealing this fact the petitioner obtained order dated 22.01.2014 whereby the operation of impugned orders if not implemented was suspended. As has already been stated above that the impugned transfer order has been implemented and the petitioner is performing his duty at the new place of his posting, therefore he is not justified to retain the accommodation provided by the respondents. Further the petitioner is an employee of the respondents who have the authority to transfer him, therefore, impugned transfer order cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. Even otherwise this Commission (NIRC) does riot ordinarily interfere in the matters of transfer or micromanage the affairs of an organization, as in view of smooth functioning of the organization the employer has inherent right to transfer any of its employees and such transfer of employees cannot be challenged. Moreover transfer of employees or even office bearers of any trade union has been considered to be an exercise of unfettered right of employer and it would not lead to any presumption of unfair labour practice on the part of employer. Courts of law are slow in interfering in transfer matters unless such transfer on face of its appears to be mala fide and tainted with extraneous consideration which is lacking in this case. I am fortified in this view by dictum laid down in 1995 PLC 1991, 2001 PLC 2094 and 1994 PLC 131. Hence, the impugned orders do not suffer from any legal infirmity and calls for no interference.
6. For the forgoing reasons the petitioner has no case at all, hence the petition under Sections 31 and 33 of IRA, 2012 merits dismissal and the same is hereby dismissed. CMA No, 24(15)/2014-K shall also face the same fate. File to records.