' This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned VIIth Labour Court, given on 14th February, 1981, allowing the application under section 34, I.R.O., filed by the Pakistan Hydro Electrical Central Labour Union through its Zonal Chairman, the respondent herein, and directing the WAPDA authorities, the appellants herein, to withdraw the office orders, dated 11th January, 1981, 25th November, 1980, and 31th December, 1980, transferring certain employees of the WAPDA including the office bearers of the respondent union, to different stations.
2. Mr. Manzare Alam, the learned counsel for the WAPDA, has assailed the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court on 3 main grounds. His first ground of attack is that an application under section 34, I.R.O., can only be filed and maintained by the C.B.A., but there is no evidence on record to show that the respondent union is the C. B. A. In the appellant establishment or even a registered Union. The learned counsel contended that in order to establish that it was the C.B.A. In the appellant establishment, it was incumbent upon the respondent union to produce before the learned Labour Court, the certificate of C.B.A. Ship granted by the Registrar, Trade unions, and since this has not been done, it has to be presumed that the respondent union has failed to establish that it is the C. B. A. In the appellant establishment, and consequently, it is not entitled to maintain an application under section 34. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied upon the decision of my learned predecessor reported as Workers' Union v. Awwallin Silk Mills (1). In that case, it has been held that though the workers union was duly registered, it was incompetent to raise an industrial dispute without obtaining the requisite certificate from the Registrar declaring it to be the C. B. A. Reliance was sought to be placed by the workers' Union on the provisions of section 52, I.R.O., but the contention of the workers' union that it should be deemed to be C.B.A. Until C.B.A. Had been duly certified under the provisions, of section 22, I.R.O., was repelled on the ground that the workers' union had not been recognised by the employer or employers. In the instant case, apart from the fact that there is no evidence to show that the respondent union was recongnized by the appellants under the West {{FOOT NOTE}} (1)1976 PLC 222 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' Pakistan Trade Union Ordinance, 1968, which is one of the enactments repealed by the I.R.O., it is not possible to assume that though the Industrial Relations Ordinance was promulgated in 1969, no certificate of collective bargaining agent ship has since been issued in respect of the appellants establishment. Moreover it is claim of the respondent Union itself that it is a component of the Pakistan Hydro-Electrical Central Labour Union which is an ALL Pakistan organization and it is the C.B.A. For the entire WAPDA establishment. However, neither the certificate of C.B.A. Of the Pakistan Hydro-Electrical Labour Union was produced nor is it even shown that the Secretary of the Zonal section at Sukkur has been authorized to file a petition under section 34, I. R.
0. On that ground alone, therefore, the application under section 34, I.R.O., would appear not to be maintainable.
3. It was next argued by Mr. Manzare Alam that since the provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, have been made applicable to the employees of the WAPDA, the Labour Courts have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the claim of the respondent union. In support of his contention, he relied upon 2 decisions reported as Sheikh Abdul Sattar v. Oil & Gas Development Corporation (1), and Aminuddin v. WAPDA (2). However, a Full Bench of Karachi High Court has held in the case of Pakistan Burmah Shell Ltd. v. Central Labour Commission, decided on 3rd August, 1980, that the Labour Courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon individual grievance of workmen relating to the specific terms and conditions of their service which function is to be distinguished from regulating the terms and conditions of service by rules. In view of this decision, which I would respectfully B follow, I find no substance in the contention of Mr. Manzare Alam regarding the non-maintainability of the respondents grievance petition, based on the plea of conflict with the provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. It may also be pointed out that while subsection (1-c) of section 17 of the W. A. P. D. A. Act, 1958. Bars the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts but the bar is only in respect of the orders of dismissal and termination of services and does not apply to other matters, such, as transfer, etc.
4. It was finally contended by Mr. Manzare Alam that the orders of transfer were passed in the exercise of the employers' right to arrange its business in the manner which he finds best suited to the circumstance and is most effective and that the transfer orders were in consequence of the instructions of the Chairman, WAPDA that persons employed at one place for more than ,5 years should be transferred. On the other hand, Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Awan, the learned counsel for the respondent union, submitted that section 15, I. R.
0., puts a complete embargo on the transfer of office : bearers during their term of office and as such transfer would amount to an unfair labour practice. In support_ of his contention, Mr. Manzare Alam relied upon the decisions reported in 1980 PLC 865, and 1980, PLC 498. It may be pointed out that clause (d) of section 15, I. R. O., does not place a complete bar on the transfer of office-bearers of a union. The bar in the said clause reads as follows :- "15 (d). Dismiss, discharge, remove from employment or threaten to dismiss, discharge or remove from employment or transfer {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) -1981 PLC 177 (2) 1978 PLC 330 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' a Workman or injure or threaten to injure him in respect of his employment by reason that the workman:-
(1) is or proposes to become, or seeks to pursuade any other person to become, a member or officer of a Trade Union, or
(ii) participates in the promotion, formation or activities of a Trade Union."
5. A perusal of the above clause will show that the transfer even of a workman leave alone that of an office-bearer is prohibited it is done with any of the intentions or the purposes referred to in the above clause. In this case, it is not shown that the transfer was done with any such intention or for any such purpose. It would appear that there were general orders of transfer.
6. It was finally contended by Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Awan that the transfer orders are in violation of the letter of WAPDA, dated 1st December, 1968. That letter, however, applies only to transfers made within 3 years of the posting. It is not shown that the persons who have been transferred have not completed 3 years of service at their former place of posting prior to the passing of the orders of their transfer. 1 specifically asked Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Awan if there was any worker had not completed the prescribed period of 3 years at his former place of posting but he was unable to refer me to any such evidence.
7. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would set aside the orders of the learned Labour Court and would allow the appeal..