' The record and proceedings in Application No. 282/81 under section 25-A, was summoned from the learned IVth Labour Court, where the said application was pending adjudication, for the purposes of examining in the exercise of the suo motu powers of revision of this Tribunal, the legality, correctness and the propriety of the order passed by the learned Labour Court on 9th December, 1981 granting a temporary injunction on the prayer of workman Muhammad Iqbal Qureshi for restraining the Associated Press of Pakistan from giving effect to its order transferring the said Muhammad Iqbal Qureshi from Karachi to Hyderabad.
2. The circumstances in which the temporary injunction was granted by the learned Labour Court, shortly stated, are that respondent Muhammad Iqbal Qureshi was employed as Chief Reporter by Messrs Associated Press of Pakistan, which is a News Agency taken over by the Government of Pakistan vide Ordinance XX of 1961 promulgated on 15th June, 1961. The Associated Press of Pakistan has its Head Office at Islamabad and its branch offices at various places in Pakistan, including Karachi, Hyderabad and Bahawalpur, etc. It appears that respondent Muhammad Iqbal Qureshi was transferred to Bahawalpur from Karachi, vide letter, dated 13th July, 1978. On his transfer to Bahawalpur, the said Muhammad Iqbal Qureshi was designated as Branch Manager. However, his total emoluments at Bahawalpur were less than what he was earning as Chief Reporter at Karachi.
Possibly on the representations of respondent Muhammad Iqbal Qureshi, though there is no tangible evidence on record in this behalf, he was re-transferred to Karachi with effect from 1st November, 1980, but instead of being posted as Chief Reporter, he was posted as News Editor at the News Desk. He considered himself aggrieved by this posting as though he claimed to be senior to Muhammad Ibrahim, the latter was made incharge of the News Desk, while respondent Muhammad Iqbal Qureshi had worked under him as News Editor. He accordingly submitted a Grievance Petition to the learned IVth Labour Court claiming promotion as Incharge of the News Desk on account of his being senior to Muhammad Ibrahim.
3. It appears that during the pendency of the aforesaid Grievance Petition before the learned IVth Labour Court, respondent Muhammad Iqbal Qureshi was ordered to be transferd from the Karachi Bureau to Hyderabad as Manager, vide order, dated 27th July, 1981. He challenged the order of his transfer through an application to the learned Labour Court for the grant of a temporary injunction to restrain the Associated Press of Pakistan implementing the said order. The learned Labour Court ordered notice of this application to be issued to the other side and in the meanwhile ordered status quo. Subsequently, by his order, dated 9th November, 1981, he granted a temporary injunction, pendente lite, restraining the Associated Press of Pakistan from giving effect to the order of transfer. The grounds which weighed with the learned Labour Court in issuing the temporary injunction have been summoned in the penultimate paragraph of the order which reads as follows :- "Without touching the merits of the case I am of the considered view that the presence of the applicant for the present at Karachi would advance the disposal of main application with expedition and it would be in the interest of justice and fair play. For the purpose of temporary injunction I am convinced that the applicant has a prima facie good case for grant of status quo and he might suffer an irreparable loss in the event of being shifted to Hyderabad at this stage of the case. Needless to say the balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the respondents whose administration and working will suffer the least by stay of transfer order for a short while."
4. After the issuance of the temporary injunction by the learned IVth Labour Court, a complaint for taking contempt proceedings against certain officers of the Associated Press of Pakistan was submitted before this Tribunal. The complaint was based on the fact that after the issuance of said temporary injunction an order was passed confirming the order of transfer and relieving Muhammad Iqbal Qureshi for taking up his appointment at Hyderabad. The complaint was disposed of by this Tribunal, vide its order, dated 14th December, 1981, on the statement of Mr. Masood Mirza, the learned representative for the Associated Press of Pakistan to the effect that a wrong information had been communicated to him to the effect that the main application of Muhammad Iqbal Qureshi had been dismissed whereas in fact another Miscellaneous application had been dismissed, and as he had communicated the wrong information to the officers of the Associated Press of Pakistan, the order relieving Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Qureshi had been passed.
He submitted that on coming to know the correct position, the order relieving Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Qureshi was resounded. A copy of that order was delivered by Mr. Muhammad Mirza to respondent Muhammad NMI. Qureshi before this Tribunal. In view of the above position, the complaint by respondent Muhammad Iqbal Qureshi was not pressed and accordingly it was disposed of on that ground.
5. Now as regards the impugned order of the learned Labour Court, dated 9th December, 1981, it may be pointed out that the question whether the Labour Court, while adjudicating upon an industrial dispute, was empowered to issue a temporary injunction was examined by a Division Bench of the Karachi High Court in the case of Brooke Bond (Pak.) Ltd. v. Kind Labour Court, Karachi (I). In that case, a Labour Court had granted a temporary injunction in proceedings under section 34,
1. R.
0., restraining the Brooke Bond Company from giving effect to its orders of retiring one employee, who was said to have attained the age of 55 years. The Division Bench of the High Court, while declaring that the temporary injunction granted by the learned Labour Court was without lawful authority and of no legal effect, observed as follows :- "I am, therefore, of the view that subsection (2) does not confer upon a Labour Court, while adjudicating and determining an industrial dispute, all the powers of a Civil Court under the Civil Procedure Code but only such of them as may be described as procedural, i. e. Such as are - required "for the purpose" of adjudication and determination. Now, it is clearly not necessary in order to be able to adjudicate or determine a dispute, that pending the adjudication or determination, a party be restrained from giving effect to the kind of the order of which respondent No. 2 complained to the Labour Court."
6. Even otherwise, the order of the learned Labour Court granting' interim injunction was in appropriate and unwarranted in the circumstances of the case. It may be pointed out that under section 25-A, only such grievance can be agitated before a learned Labour Court which is for the enforcement of a right guaranteed by law, settlement or award. There appears at present nothing on record to show that Muhammad Iqbal Qureshi had any such' right under the law, settlement or award. In the case of Messrs.' M. F. Sons Food Industries v. Amel Mian (2), this Tribunal, while upholding the right of the employer to transfer a workman observed as follows :- "Although a workman, especially if he is office-bearer of the union which is seeking to be a C. B. A., is entitled to take part in the referendum for the determination of the C. B. A., and also must be given full opportunity to work for the union this does not mean that the employer should be denied his right of transferring an employee from one station to another station. The rights of the workers must be balanced with the duties which they owe to the Management".
"It is, thus, clear that the management in transferring the respondent to Hyderabad was only acting in accordance with its normal practice and as provided in the letter of appointment of the employees for shifting workers from one station to another station in the exigencies of service and not for the purpose of depriving the respondent of his right to take part in the referendum. As such, prima facie, no right of the respondent was infringed for upholding which the impugned order should have been passed."
7. Mr. S. P. Lodhi, the learned counsel for the respondent Muhammad Iqbal Qureshi, however, sought to argue that the Labour {{FOOT NOTE}}
(I) PLD 1973 Kar. 189 (2) 1980 PLC 865 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' Court had inherent jurisdiction to grant the injunction in question and in support of his contention relied upon the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Sind Employees'
Social Security Institution v. Adamjee Cotton Mills Ltd. (1). The facts of that case, however, are wholly different from the facts of the present case. In that case, the Supreme Court was considering the powers of an appellate Court and it observed that the power to grant interim relief by suspending, wholly or partially, the operation of the order appealed against is reasonably incidental or ancillary to the main appellate jurisdiction. In the instant case, the learned Labour Court was not exercising appellate jurisdiction but was dealing with a grievance petition under section 25-A, I. R.
0., which was to be decided as an industrial dispute.
8. For the reasons discussed by me above, I am the view that the impugned order, dated 9th December, 1981, passed by the learned Labour Court was without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
I would accordingly set aside the same in the exercise of my suo motu revisional powers.
9. Although I am setting aside the impugned order of the learned Labour Court, this would not entitle the Associated Press of Pakistan to transfer respondent Muhammad Iqbal Qureshi to Hyderabad. In the complaint proceedings initiated by Muhammad Iqbal Qureshi before this Tribunal, an undertaking had been given by Mr. Masood Mirza, the learned representative of the Associated Press of Pakistan, that respondent Muhammad Iqbal Qureshi would not be transferred during the pendency of the proceedings in the application No. 282 of 1981 before the learned Labour Court. That application is admittedly pending adjudication. As such, at least so long as the said application is pending adjudication before the learned Labour Court, the undertaking given by Mr. Masood Mirza would remain in force. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(I) PLD 1975 SC 32 {{FOOT NOTE}}