The appellant, who prior to 1972 was a free-lance Writer for different newspapers including Daily Mashriq was appointed as a clerk in the National Press Trust, vide letter, dated 15th March, 1972. He continued in the capacity of clerk in the National Press Trust till 1977, though during this period he appears to have written some articles for news--papers. On the strength of these articles, the appellant, vide his applica--tion, dated 24th December, 1971 requested that he may be taken up on the reporting side of the Daily Mashriq Ltd. By the order, photo copy of which appears at page 185 of the record of the learned Labour Court , he was appointed on purely temporary basis as Junior Proof Reader with effect from 1st January, 1978. The appellant subsequently, by order, dated 25th September, 1980 was transferred to work in the Daily Mashriq, Quetta. The appellant took exception to his transfer to Quetta on the ground that he had been appointed only for the Karachi office of Daily Mashriq Ltd., and was note liable to be transferred to Quetta. The appellant's stand in this behalf was rejected by the management.
Instead of joining duties at Quetta, as directed in the management's order, dated 25th September, 1920 the appellant tiled a grievance petition before the learned Vth Labour Court , challenging his orders of transfer to Quetta and reinstatement in service at Karachi with back wages.
2. The learned Labour Court has repelled the appellant's contention that he was not liable to transfer mainly on the basis of rule 8 of the Rules framed in 1971 for the employees of the Daily Mashriq, which rule reads as follows :- ---Every employee of Mashriq Ltd. Will be liable to be transferred to any place in West Pakistan without any extra allowance.---
3. It is an admitted position that in October, 1972, the Press establishment at Karachi of the National Press Trust was handed over to Daily Mashriq. The appellant, who was appointed in the National Press Trust Press on 15th March, 1972, thus came under the control of the Daily Mashriq Ltd., in about October, 1972. Moreover, it was on the appellant's application, dated 24th December, 1977 that he was temporarily appointed as Junior Proof Reader in the Daily Mashriq Ltd. It is true as pointed out by Mr. S. P. Lodhi, the learned representative for the appellant, that the letter of appointment of the appellant does not specifically provide that he was liable to be transferred outside Karachi, but at the same time, the letter does not state that the appellant was appointed or Karachi only. When the appellant's services were brought under the control of Daily Mashriq Ltd., the Service Rules of Mashriq Ltd , were already in force. These rules, apart from the condition of liability of transfer, also provided for other terms and conditions of service of the employees, including leave. Salary, daily allowance etc. It is not shown that the appellant had not availed of the benefits provided under the said rules or that he was governed by any other conditions in respect of his leave salary and daily allowance etc. I am, therefore, inclined to the view that rule 8 of the said rules regarding the liability for the transfer of the employees was also applicable to the appellant. A some what of similar issue was examined by this Tribunal in the case of Riaz Hussain v. Shahnawaz Ltd. Decided an 6th February, 1982. In that case, it was urged by the learned representative for the workman that as~ workman's letter of appointment did not provide for his transfer outside Karachi, he could not be transferred outside Karachi. This contention was rejected and it was held, after an exhaustive review of the law on the subject, that the employer was entitled to transfer the workman from Karachi to any other place, notwithstanding the fact that the letter of appointment of the workman did not specifically provide that he was liable to transfer outside Karachi. It was further observed in that order that apart from the fact that an employer has a general right in the exigencies of its business to transfer an employee from one place to another unless there is a specific bar for such transfer, Rules 26 and 28 of the Employment Rules applicable to the employees of the company in which the worker was employed provide for transfer of any employee from one place to another:
4. For the reasons discussed by me above relying upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Riaz Hussain. I am of the view that there is no material in this appeal and accordingly dismiss the same in limine.