' The titled petitions respectively filed by Muhammad Arif Butt, Taj Muhammad and Jahangir Ali, petitioners against the Managing Director, P.U.T.C. And others based on common issues of facts and law are disposed with this single order.
2. Petitioners are employed as duty clerks in various depots of respondents' P.U.T. Corporation at Lahore. They claim to be officers of various unions. They assert that respondent No, 1 has abolished the posts of duty clerks in all the depots with immediate effect through impugned order No, P.U.T.C./ESTT/E-I/Policy-12-IX/85, dated 24th January, 1985. The duty clerks deal with the conductors inasmuch as they fix duties on various routes in the depot. Due to impugned order they would not be able to contact the workers and therefore in order to suppress the lawful trade union activities of the petitioners, the impugned order had been passed with mala fide intention. The mala fide intention was apparent because while abolishing the posts of duty clerks, the junior clerks had been posted to perform the duties of duty clerks. It was further urged that the Managing Director had no jurisdiction or authority to change the category of the petitioners or to abolish the posts of duty clerks. It was, therefore, prayed that pending disposal of their main petitions, the operation of the impugned order be suspended and respondents be directed not to commit any unfair labour practice.
3. Stay orders were issued in all the cases and the arguments of the parties were heard on 14th February, 1985 when the orders in the stay matter were reserved.
4. The counsel for the petitioners states that order was mala fide and passed to disperse the officers of the Union so that they could not have contact with the workers. He said that Supreme Court of Pakistan had held that malice was destructive of all actions even if they were taken in compliance with any law. He said that the petitioners had been transferred as time checkers and their posts had been abolished which was beyond the powers of the Managing Director. Giving the history of the order he stated that on 11th December, 1984 the Managing Director ordered that the Assistant Traffic Manager and duty Clerks would fix the duties of the conductors. Ostensibly complying with the order but otherwise defying the order, the Director (Operation) respondent No, 2 ordered on 15th December, 1984 that only the Assistant Traffic Managers will fix the duties of the conductors. This was defiance of the order of his own senior because respondent No, 1 had ordered the duty clerks will also fix the duties of the conductors. On 24th January, 1985, the impugned order was issued by respondent No, 1 again stating that the Assistant Traffic Managers and junior clerks would fix the duties of the conductors. Since the junior clerks had been retained by the Assistant Traffic Managers and they were in the same scale of pay as the duty clerks, it was claimed that the intention of impugned order was only to displace the duty clerks who were all officers of various unions at Lahore (except one). He further stated that there were various cadres in the P. U. T. C. The duty clerks belong to traffic cadre while the junior clerks belong to the Finance and Accounts cadre.
No transfer from one cadre to the other cadre could be made. Posting of junior clerks from the accounts cadre to the traffic cadre was against the P.R.T.B. Rules.
5. The counsel for the respondents states that the impugned order was issued on 24th January, 1985. It was implemented forthwith throughout Punjab and Islamabad Capital territory while interim injunction was obtained by the petitioners on 29th January, 1985 and on 3rd February, 1985.
Consequently, the interim injunction was issued after impugned orders have come into effect.
Since status qua ante could not be reserved therefore the petitions for interim injunction were not competent and deserved to be dismissed.
6. On merits he denied that the posts of the duty clerks had been abolished on account of trade union activities of petitioners. He also denied that the junior clerks had been posted in place of duty clerks. He asserted that the respondent No, 1 had the authority to abolish the posts of the petitioners. He produced a copy of the "Delegation of Power Rules." Item 20 of the said "Delegation of Powers Rules" showed as follows : ' Powers Managing Director Principal Officer District Managers S. No.Powers Managing Director Principal OfficerDistrict Managers 12 3 4 5 20.To sanction the creation of posts for their own office and offices subordinate to them and toprescribe scale of pay in regard to them.Full powers in respect of allposts carryingpayscales upto those of District Managers subject to the pro-- vision in the Budget.Temporary posts upto N.P.S.-12 for a period notexce--eding six months subject toreport to Corporation.
7. As for abolition of the posts of duty clerks I am of the view that an employer is free to make boda fide adjustments, in his staff, affording to law, to suit his business requirements. The above cited delegation of financial powers shows that power to sanction and create posts has been conferred on the Managing Director. It, therefore, follows that he who could create a post could also abolish that post. I am fortified in this view by a dictum of Mr. A. Aamer Raza A, Khan, J. In Writ Petition No, 5174/S-1980 Liaqat Ali y. P.R.T.B.
"......Board may under Clause (I) of Rule 12 create posts as also abolish them. Further as is evident from rule 14, the board may delegate its powers to the Managing Director and this will obviously include powers under clause (1) of Rule 12 afore referred. By item No, 20 of the "Delegation of Power Rules" the Managing Director is delegated the power to create posts upto Grade-18. Consequently, it follows that he can also in exercise of such powers abolish posts upto Grade-18."
8. Thus, I conclude that respondent No, 1 was competent to abolish the posts of the petitioners. The only question therefore is as to whether these posts were abolished due to trade union activities of the petitioners. At this stage, I have not recorded the evidence. Without recording evidence it could not be said with certainty that whatever is stated is true and correct. The entire case of petitioner hipges upon evidence to show that unfair labour practice has been committed and that impugned order is mak fide because it was issued to curb the trade union activities in the establishment.
Respondents' counsel has shown the original file of the office of respondent No, 1 containing the original notes leading to issuance of the impugned order dated, 24th January, 1985. These notes per se do not show that the trade union activities had anything to do with the decision to abolish the posts of duty clerks. On the other hand the assertion of the petitioners is that it is not casual coincidence that out of six or seven duty clerks affected except one, every one was Officer of one or the other trade union. The counsel for the petitioners states that the action stems from the intense dislike of the respondents for trade unionism and their desire to to victimize these officers of trade Union, to determine whether it is true or not, evidence will have to be recorded. The whole case, therefore, hinges upon the evidence with is yet to be recorded. Thus, granting of interim relief in these circumstances will be pre-mature. In fact in the case of N.C.C. Juna Sunder Joint Venture Workers Union v. N.C.C. Ltd. the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal went so far as to vacate the interim relief already granted by the Sind Labour Court No, V, Karachi on the very ground.
9. I therefore, dismiss the three petitions for interim relief and recall the stay orders already issued.
The main petitions shall come up for evidence on a date to be specified by office. Stay order vacated NLR 1980 T D 95