' This is an appeal directed against the impugned order of Sind Labour Court No.V, dated 28-7-1983, whereby he has dismissed the grievance application under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, of the appellant.
2. The facts briefly are that the appellant was a workman and employed with the respondent- establishment at Plant and Equipment Department, Pak. Steel, Bin Qasim, Karachi, as Senior Administrative Assistant. It is alleged that on 2-12-1981, the workmen of 8 Projects of the respondent-establishment formed a trade union under the name and style of National Construction Company Ltd. Employees Union, South Project, Karachi. The appellant was elected as General Secretary of the said union. The appellant made application for registration of the said union in the office of the Registrar of Trade Unions, Government of Sind, Karachi on 10-12-1981 and such an intimation was sent under section 8(A), I.R.O., 1969, to the respondent-establishment through registered post, A/D. It is alleged that on receipt of such intimation the respondents illegally and male fidely transferred the services of the appellant to Islamabad on 16-12-1981. The appellant was relieved from the assignment at Karachi, vide letter, dated 17-12-1982. Hence the appellant sent grievance notice on 6-3-1982 for cancellation of illegal transfer order but the grievance of the appellant was not redressed, hence, he filed petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969.
3. The reply statement of the respondent-establishment is that the appellant was transferred to Islamabad and he is on the strength of Islamabad office and the Labour Court at Karachi has no jurisdiction. Further, the transfer of an employee is an inherent right of the management. It is not a right guaranteed under any law which could be enforced under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969. The appellant was transferred on 16-12-1981 and the transfer order was stayed by the Labour Court No.1 and ultimately vacated by this Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal was not challenged in the High Court of Sind. The appellant fraudulently formed a trade union against the order of the National Industrial Relations Commission, Islamabad, whereby a Collective Bargaining Agent was created.
The appellant was Vice-Chairman and of another trade union of respondent-establishment registered before the N.I.R.C., Islamabad at the national level. The appellant deliberately has concealed the facts from the Registrar of Trade Unions. The respondents brought this fact to the notice of the Registrar of Trade Unions at Karachi and the C.B.A. Certificate was not issued. The appellant never sent an intimation to the respondents as required under section 8(A), I.R.O., 1969.
4. Before the Labour Court the appellant filed his affidavit in evidence and was duly cross- examined. The respondents filed affidavit of S.I.H. Rizvi and he was also duly cross-examined.
5. I have heard the representative of the appellant, Mr.Rafiq Malik, and the learned counsel, Mr. Naeem Bukhari, Advocate for the respondents.
6. Mr.Rafiq Malik, representative of the appellant challenged the facts that the right to transfer the appellant was not an inherent right. To this, the learned counsel of the respondent-establishment has pointed out and shown Annexure 'A-1' at page 103 of the Labour Court record. Para. 1 of it is as under:- "Transfer: An employee of the company may be posted anywhere in or outside Pakistan or transferred in the interest of the Company's service from one place to another by the Authority concerned. Such employee will be governed by the service conditions as applicable to the department/establishment where posted. Where an employee disobeys an order of transfer without any valid reason, he shall render himself liable for disciplinary action.
7. ' The learned counsel of the respondents has submitted that the service conditions are that the appellant who disobeyed the orders of transfer order became liable for disciplinary action. It has further been argued by the learned counsel of the respondents that the company has a right to transfer a worker and as such it is its inherent right.
8. The main contention of the representative of the appellant is that the appellant was transferred mala fidely against the spirit of section 8(A), of I.R.O., 1969. Section 8(A), I.R.O., 1969 is reproduced as under:- "Transfer, etc., of officer of trade union during pendency of application for registration.-- Save with the prior permission of the Registrar, no officer of a trade union or workman shall be transferred, discharged, dismissed or otherwise punished during the pendency of an application for registration of the trade union with the Registrar, provided that the union has notified the names of the officers of the employer in writing."
9. The proviso of the said section contemplates that the union has to notify the names of the officers to the employer in writing and unless that is done no transfer would take place or employer is deprived of having a right to transfer. Both, in the statement of the respondents and in the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents, is that such an intimation of names were not given in writing. On record at Annexures 'C', 'D' and 'F' certain documents are shown to prove that the intimation was conveyed to the respondent-establishment. Annexure 'C' are the postal receipts, dated 10-12-1981, said to be carrying the letters of the intimation to the employer.
Registered A/D was posted but the receipt of A/D is not available on record. However, there is Annexure 'F' which shows that the postal office has delivered the message on 12-12-1981, but it has no signature of the employers. The provision is that information should be sent in writing to the employer and the employer denies to have received these documents which do not carry the signatures of the employer. It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel of the respondents that this information was not received by the respondents and cannot be proved by the documents which are produced on record. In other words, they did not know that the proceedings before the Registrar of Trade Unions were pending. The transfer of appellant was in the ordinary routine of the respondent-establishment and the respondents has not violated section 8(A), I.R.O., 1969.
10. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the proof of the receipt of intimation to the employer is lacking and it is not proved that the employer has violated section 8(A), I.R.O., 1969.
11. The main contention of the appellant is the violation of section 8(A), I.R.O., 1969, by the employer is not proved. On the other hand, the learned counsel of the employer's contention is that the services of the appellant have been terminated in July, 1982, and as such he is no more an employee of the respondent-establishment. This fact is given in the affidavit in evidence of respondent as well as admitted by the appellant. In the application under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, the appellant has prayed for cancellation of the transfer order. Since the appellant is no more an employee of the respondent-establishment and he has been removed from service in July, 1982, the prayer for cancellation of transfer orders has become infructuous. In fact the appellant should have filed a case for his re-instatement of service. It has also been submitted by the Advocate for the respondent-establishment that the transfer order was bona fide. The right to cancel the transfer order was not guaranteed as is the requirement of section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969.
12. In my view the appeal has failed. The same is accordingly dismissed.