' MUHAMMAD IQBAL MAHAR, J.--- By this common Order we propose to dispose of above captioned petitions filed by Shafi-ud-Din and four others v. National Industrial Commission and others and Gerry's Dnata Workers Union (CBA) v. National Industrial Relations Commission and others. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 6.8.2015 passed by NIRC Full Bench at Karachi whereby the order dated 31.7.2015 passed by learned Single Member NIRC Karachi dismissing the stay application as well as the main case filed by the petitioners was maintained.
2. Relevant facts leading to the instant petitions are that the petitioners are employed in the establishment of respondents Nos.3 and 4. They are members/office bearers of Gerry's Dnata Workers Union (CBA) and they are actively engaged in trade Union activities for maintaining a congenial working environment with the Respondent company and conducive for both the employer as well as the workers. The Petitioner's Union CBA raised an industrial dispute and submitted charter of demands for year 2013-2015 to the establishment but the respondents did not resolve it and during the pendency of conciliation proceedings, the establishment started victimization of the members/office bearers and issued transfer letters in order to crush the Trade union activities which amounts to unfair labour practice and also violation of Section 31 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The petitioners filed petitions under section 54 read with 31 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 before learned Single Member, National Industrial Relations Commission (NRIC) with following prayer: "this honourable Commission may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents not to commit any act of unfair labour practice and not to cause injury to the employment of the petitioners in any manner whatsoever by way of dismissal, discharge, removal, termination and transfer etc. And it is also prayed to set aside the impugned transfer letter dated 3.3.2014 issued to the petitioner No,7 having been based upon unfair labour practice and contrary to the respective laws."
3. In response to the notice the respondent-establishment filed their comments and counter affidavit in which they refuted the claim of the petitioners.
4. The learned Single Member National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) Karachi after hearing the parties dismissed the stay applications as well as main petitions. The petitioners approached the learned Full Bench National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) but the appeals were dismissed with the observation that NIRC does not ordinarily interfere in the matters of transfer or micromanage the affairs of an organization as the employer has inherent right to transfer any of its employees.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned. Order dated 6.8.2015 passed by learned Full Bench NIRC and order dated 31.7.2015 passed by learned Single Member NIRC are illegal, unjustified and are not sustainable under the law. He further contended that the respondent No,4 transferred the petitioner No, 5 from Karachi to Peshawar vide order dated 3.5.2014, available at page 137, 'which comes within the ambit of unfair labour practice and is in violation of section 31 of Industrial Relations Act, 2012. He also contended that the law provides protection to the Union and its members/office bearers all the time against the acts of unfair labour practice but unfortunately the learned Single Member and the learned Full Bench NIRC totally ignored and refused to act according to the facts and law and wrongly relied upon the assertions of employer. He also contended that the Learned Single Member NIRC while deciding the main petition of the petitioners without recording the evidence of the parties. In support of his arguments he has relied upon PLD 1988 SC 416, 2005 SCM R 100, 1972 SCM R 395 and 2013 SCM R 13.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.3 and 4 submitted that the orders passed by the learned Single Member as well as by learned Full Bench NIRC are legal, lawful and in accordance with law. He further submitted that the management of Gerry's Dnata (Pvt.) Ltd.
Has rightly transferred the petitioners as the transfer was under the terms and conditions of their 'employment and that the petition before learned Single Member NIRC under the garb of unfair labour practice was not maintainable and the learned Single Member NIRC had no jurisdiction to entertain all kinds of grievance petitions not relating to unfair labour practice. He further submitted that the allegations levelled in petition before learned Single Member NIRC were bald, vague and general in nature and it is settled law that mere leveling false allegations of unfair labour practice would not create cause to file the petitions. He also submitted that petitioner Allah Dad was surplus to the requirement of the respondent Management at Jinnah International Air Port, Karachi and his services were required at Peshawar international Air Port due to company's operational requirement hence he was transferred in accordance with the terms of appointment letter. He also submitted that the respondent management had filed statement before learned Full Bench NIRC that all the petitioners had complied with the transfer orders and had resumed their duties at their respective postings at Multan, Islamabad and Quetta Airports respectively. He further submitted that since the petitioners have levelled false allegations therefore recording of evidence by learned Single Member NIRC was not necessary. He lastly submitted that the learned Single Member and Full Bench have given concurrent findings against the petitioners hence same cannot be disturbed in constitutional jurisdiction by this Court, therefore, he prayed for dismissal of above constitutional petitions in support of his submissions he placed his reliance upon cases reported in 1984 PLC 1480, PLD 1988 SC 53, 2004 SCM R 28 and 1998 SCM R 68.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available before us and case laws cited by learned counsel for the parties. Both the learned counsel, at the very outset, submitted that these matters may be heard and decided at katcha peshi stage.
8. Record reflects that the petitioners are members/office bearers of Trade Union, namely, GERRY'S DNATA WORKERS UNION which is registered and has been certified as Collective Bargaining Agent
(CBA) for the workmen employed in the establishment of M/s Gerry's Dnata (Pvt.) Limited.
Registration Certificate and CBA Certificate are available. At Pages 81 and 83 of the petition.
9. Case of the petitioners is that they filed their petitions under section 54 of Industrial Relations Act, 2012, before learned Single Member NIRC complaining of unfair labour practice that has been committed by the respondent establishment and an application under Regulation 32(2)C) of NIRC (P&F) 1973 seeking interim relief with regard to certain unfair labour practices but the learned Single Member NIRC after filing counter affidavit by the respondent establishment heard