M.S.H. QURAISHI (CHAIRMAN).--This appeal has been heard under subsection (4) of section 22-B of Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969 in the absence of the third learned Member Mr. Aziz Ahmad, who is on leave.
2. The appeal is directed against the dismissal in limine of the appellant's complaint made under section 22-A(8)(f) read with section 53 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
3. The appellant's case was that as an employee (Assistant) of the Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited, ate had been taking part in the promotion of the trade union and the welfare of the workers of the Bank since, 1975, that he had various offices in the union including that of Chairman of Allied Bank Limited staff union (Collecting Bargaing Agent), to which office he was last elected on 25-10-1984, though according to his own showing the election had not been approved by the Registrar, Trade Unions, that he was transferred from Kala Shah Kaku to Kalabagh by order, dated 20-5-1985 of which he was not aware as the same was not served on him, that he had fallen ill and applied for sick leave from 25-5-1985 to 8-6-1985 on medical ground which leave he later sought to get extended on the same medical ground, but that instead of the leave being sanctioned he received charge-sheet, dated 10-6-1985 for disciplinary action for disobedience of the transfer order and absence from duty. This, according to him, was on account of his trade union activities and as such constituted unfair labour practice for which the respondents were liable to be punished under section 15 read with section 53 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
4. Alongwith the complaint which was filed on 2-7-1985 an application was also moved for staying the operation of the transfer order, dated 20-5-1985 and the charge-sheet, dated 10-6-1,985 "till decision of the complaint".
5. The complainant's preliminary statement was recorded on 2-7-1985 and the same day an interim order was issued directing the respondents not to implement the transfer order till 16-7- 1985 and not to pass final order on the charge-sheet though they could proceed with the enquiry.
The respondents were further directed to produce the relevant documents. The respondents filed comments also with the relevant documents. Their plea was that the order transferring the appellant from KalashahKaku Branch was passed on 20-5-1985, that by order, dated 23-5-1985 he was relieved of his duty at that place, that he refused to receive the transfer letter, the relieving letter and the L. P. C. Which were then sent to him by registered post under certificate of posting and that as he failed to join at the new place, he was served with a charge-sheet, dated 10-6-1985.
The respondents further commented that in order to avoid the implementation of the transfer order, the appellant relied on a "fake medical certificate", and that when asked to appear before a ,Medical Board. He refused to comply. The respondents, therefore, moved an application for vacating the stay order. After hearing the parties the Single Bench by its order, dated 30-9-1985, dismissed the stay application upon the view that since the appellant's election as Chairman or even as a Trade Union Officer had not been recognized by the Registrar, Trade Union, the question of his victimization by the transfer did not arise. For the same reason, as recorded in that order, it also dismissed the complaint on 17-10-1985.
6. The contention is that no proper enquiry was held by the Single Bench as required under Regulation 20 of the NIRC (Procedure of Functions) Regulations, 1973 particularly when Gul Bahisht whose appearance had been ordered was not examined in connection with the service of the transfer and relieving orders.
7. There is no rule that transfer of a Trade Union Official would per se constitute unfair labour practice under section 15 of the I.R.0.1969. In order to attract the provision of that section, it is necessary to show that the transfer is intended to persuade him to become a member or officer of a trade union or to participate or to refrain from participating in the promotion, formation of activities of a trade union, or to induce him to refrain from becoming, or to cease to be a member or officer of a trade union, by conferring or offering to A confer any advantage on, or any procuring of offering to procure any advantage for him or any other person. Specific facts which could give rise to an inference of victimization do not find mention in the appellant's complaint or the preliminary statement. In the absence of any supporting material to show prima facie, that the transfer was ordered by way of l victimization, we are unable to agree that by the transfer itself a prima facie case of unfair labour practice had been made out.
8. In regard to the charge-sheet, the respondents produced documents to show that the transfer order as also the relieving order had been sought to be served on the appellant on 23-5-1985 through Peon Book, but that the appellant had according to the entry therein made by Gul Bahisht Khan, refused to receive the same. The Bank had thereupon sent the same by registered post under certificate of posting but it had been returned unserved. It is true that the learned Single Bench had ordered the appearance of Gul Bahisht, but he was not examined. But even if this could raise a presumption that Gul Bahist, if examined, would testify in favour of the appellant the fact remains that the transfer order and the relieving order had subsequently been sent by registered post and under certificate of posting.
9. In any case, the appellant did become aware of the transfer on receipt of the charge-sheet to which he replied on 15-6-1985. He had even then chosen to keep away from office on the basis of a certificate from a private medical practitioner, which was not accepted by the Bankwho asked him to appear before a Medical Board at the District Headquarters Hospital, Sheikhupura. He did not come forward and instead took up the stand that as he had not received any transfer order so far, there was no question of appearing before the Board. He also questioned the competency of the Zonal Officer, Sargodha to set up the Medical Board, on the ground that he had not yet joined duty under him at Sargodha. We find no proper excuse for such an attitude on the part of the appellant.
These facts, too, thus did not make out any prima facie case of unfair labour practice
9. In the circumstance, we find no justification for interfering with the impugned order of dismissal of the complaint. The appeal is dismissed in limine.