1. DECISION MAHMOOD AHMAD SOOFI (CHAIRMAN).--This application has been instituted by the petitioner Muhammad Farooq under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance; 1969, against the District Manager, Road Transport Corporation, Lyallpur. In his application the petitioner has stated that he is an employee of the Road Transport Corporation and an application under section 47xof the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 has been filed in this Court by the respondent against the petitioner. The petitioner has further submitted that the respondent passed an order regarding the petitioner's transfer from Lyallpur to Sargodha on the 15th of June, 1970. The petitioner addressed an applica--tion on the 31st of August 1970, to the respondent for permission to undergo medical treatment in Lyallpur but this application, was not accepted. The petitioner has complained that the respondent has wilfully punished the petitioner and thus contravened the terms and conditions of the petitioner's employ--ment according to which the petitioner could be posted only in Lyallpur where permanent arrangements for medical aid were available. The petitioner has concluded his application with the following prayer :- "As the order of transfer is 'mala fide' against law and misuse of discretion and has been passed in violation of the provisions of section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, it is, therefore, prayed that the Order of transfer be set aside and the respondent be directed to place arse on duty at the old post at Lyallpur. The cost may kindly be awarded."
2. A reply to the petitioner's application was filed by the respon--dent. In that reply it was categorically declared that the petitioner Muhammad Farooq who was a traffic cleaner in the employment of the respondent, had resigned from service with effect from the date 8th of September 1970, hence tile respondent's application under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, had already become unnecessary. It was admitted by the respondent that the petitioner was transferred from Lyallpur to Sargodha but it was also pointed out that the petitioner was allowed to undergo medical' examination by the Medical Superintendent of any Government Hospital in Sargodha. The respondent contended that the transfer of an employee from one station to another was not a punishment. It was also submitted by the respondent that although the petitioner had mentioned in his application that he was a member of the Executive Committee of a registered Trade Union nevertheless it was a fact that other members of that executive committee were also posted at stations other than Lyallpur. The respondent prayed for the dismissal of the petitioner's application.
3. I have heard the arguments of both parties and have examined the relevant documents carefully.
4. The petitioner himself has admitted that he voluntarily tendered his resignation from the respondent's service with effect from the 8th of September 1970, even though this important fact has not been mentioned by him in his application under consideration. On the other hand the provisions of section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, as amended during the month of October by the Industrial Relations Ordinance (Amendment) Ordinance, 1970, are worded as follows: "34. Application to Labour Court.-Any collective bargaining agent or any employer or workman may apply to the Labour Court for the enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured, to it or him by or under any law or any award of settlement."
5. Careful consideration of the contents of the petitioner's application and of his oral arguments had led me to the conclusion that this is a case in which no right guaranteed or secured to the petitioner Muhammad Farooq by or under any law or any award or any settlement can reasonably be said to have been violated by the respondent. The question of enforcing any such right in favour of the petitioner under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, does not, therefore, arise at all in this case. No law or rule has been cited in the application under consideration under which an employee of the Road Transport Corporation can be held to be entitled to be stationed in one city only regardless of the require--ments of the employing authority. Furthermore, it would not be fair to gloss over the fact that the petitioner tendered his resignation from the respondent's service with effect from the 8th September 1970 which was accepted, by the respondent on the following day and about three weeks later he instituted the present application against the respondent under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, in which he deliberately abstained from mentioning the fact of his having resigned from the respondent's service. The concealment of an important fact by a petitioner from the- Court whose jurisdic--tion he has chosen to invoke is a circumstance that must inevitably tell against the petitioner's entire case.
6. Moreover the respondent's order regarding the transfer of the petitioner from one station to another was lawful and not challengeable in a Court of law.
7. For the above-recorded reasons this application is dismissed.In view of the express provisions of subsection (4) of section 37 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, this decision of the Labour Court Central Zone, Lahore, "shall be final and shall not be called in question in any manner by or before any Court of other authority." Consequently, no appeal lies to any Court or other authority against this decision of the Labour Court, Central Zone, Lahore.