' The facts leading to this application for interim relief filed alongwith petition under section 22-A of the I. R. 0 , 1969 read with regulation 34 of the N. I. R. C. (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973 are that the petitioner is a booking clerk employed in the G. T. S. Saddar Depot Punjab Road Transport Board, Lahore. He is the elected Joint Secretary of the G. T. S. Employees Union which is the C. B. A. For the said establishment. It is alleged that he used to meet the respondent District Manager in connection with day to day problems of workers and had in fact met him in connection with the illegal suspension of one Muhammad Nawaz, Driver, whom he had charge-sheeted and suspended on baseless charges. These trade union activities annoyed the respondent who transferred him on 14th May, 1983 to sub-office Aabpara Islamabad and directed him to report to the incharge sub-office at Islamabad, whereas no person acting as incharge had been posted there. Neither P. R. T. B. Nor its Managing Director passed any order creating sub-office at Aabpara Islamabad nor did they create any post for such alleged sub-office at Islamabad. The District Manager himself had no jurisdiction to create any such post of booking clerk, or to establish any sub-office by his own order. Further, no building owned or rented by P. R. T. B. Or G. T. S. Saddar Depot existed. The question of establishment of any sub-office Aabpara as claimed, therefore, did not arise. The transfer orders were therefore, made on account of petitioner's trade union activities.
It was prayed that the transfer order be suspended till the final disposal of his application.
2. During the course of arguments the counsel for the respondent disclosed that this transfer was purely a seasonal arrangement till 15th September, 1983. This arrangement had been necessitated by the fact that previously the buses of G. T. S. Saddar Depot, Lahore were being booked by the Staff of G. T. S. Rawalpindi but due to the start of Murree Season the rush of work on the Staff of G. T.
S., Rawalpindi had increased and, therefore they asked the respondent to make his own arrangement for booking of leased buses of his unit plying from Islamabad for Lahore and Peshawar. It was admitted that there was no building owned or rented by P. R. T. B. And the building where the petitioner was required to perform his duty belonged to P. U. T. C. With whom arrangements had been made to accomodate the P. R. T. B. Staff. The arrangement had been approved by the Chief Traffic Officer, P. R. T. B.
3. The counsel for the respondents has cited several authorities to show that a Joint Secretary of C.
B. A. Union was not an important officer of trade union. He has submitted a copy of the constitution of the union to show that it is only in the absence of the General Secretary of the union that the Joint Secretary performs any functions in the union. He cited the two cases decided by my learned brothers namely the M. C. P. Employees Union Shalimar Workshop Lahore v. Afzal Bhatti Area General Manager M. C. P. And two others decided by Bashir Ahmad Malik Member N. I. R. C. , and Imdad Hussain v. Major Tahir Mahmud Khawaja, A.
0. Gammon Pakistan Ltd. , decided by Mr. Aziz Ahmad Member N. I. R. C. In the former case a propaganda Secretary of the Union and in the latter a cashier of the union claimed that they had been transferred on account of trade union activities. In both these cases however the plea did not succeed. In the former it was held that bolding an office of trade union did not absolve the holder from transfer. In the latter case it was urged and upheld that the complainant being only a treasurer in union was not required to discuss union demands with management or to correspond with respondent and as such he was not at all a source of trouble to them, I am however of the considered view that whether a person is holder of any office of a trade union or its member is immaterial. What is to be seen is whether or not unfair labour practice has been committed, and the status of the person whether he is a member or officer in the trade union, with whom it has been committed is immaterial.
4. In that view of the matter, whether transfer of the petitioner till 15th September, 1983 as a part of a temporary measure to tide over a particular period when arrangements with Rawalpindi G. T. S. Had bogged down is an unfair labour practice or not, can only be decided after evidence has been taken, and a prima facie case has been made out.
5. I had examined Mushtaq Ahmad a fellow booking clerk of the petitioner who had also been transferred. All that he has said is to the effect that there is no place to seat these transferees at sub-office Aabpara. This may be a grievance but not an unfair labour practice. Even otherwise this is obviously not the whole of evidence which is yet to come. The reasons which appeal to me are that since the post itself is expected to last till 15th September, 1983, granting of stay order by way of interim relief would amount to granting total relief. Also the stay order is likely to interfere with emergency arrangements made by a public transport body in public interest which I would not like to disturb. I also do not find strength, at this stage, in the assertion that the transfer has been made due to trade union activities of Muhammad Afzal for not only he, but two more persons who are not officers of the union have been transferred. Prima facie, therefore, this appears to be an exercise to avoid transfer from Lahore to Islamabad which does not commend itself to me. I, therefore, dismiss this application for stay orders, and recall the stay orders already issued, on 23rd May, 1983. 1979 PLC 13 1981 PLC 287 revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.