DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 4-11-1984, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. III, Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25-A, I.R.0.1969.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed on 17-6-1981 as Room Bearer on a monthly salary of Rs.280 at Hotel Jabees, Karachi, which had four other establishments, namely, Jabees Play-land, Jabees Play-land Restaurant, Jabees Fun-land and Jabees Kababish and on 26-5-1983, he was transferred as a Bearer to Kababish at the Fun-land Restaurant. The appellant had objected to this transfer on the ground that he was a Room Bearer whereas there was no Room service at the Kababish, as such he could not be transferred to any place where there was no Room service. The appellant, however, had complied with this transfer order and joined his duties at Kababish as Bearer, as his representation against the transfer was turned down by the establishment. It was the, case of the appellant that his services were illegally dismissed.
3. The respondent establishment resisted the petition on the ground that the employment in the respondents establishment was inter---transferable and all the establishments of Messrs Jabees Establishment were governed by one and same Collective Bargaining Agent. That the appellant had accepted his transfer as a waiter to the Jabees Kababish and there was no different in the service conditions of a Room Bearer or a Waiter and that he actually taken over as a Kababish on 5-6-1983, but, from the next date, he had absconded and unauthorisedly remained absent from the duties as Kababish. That the appellant was, therefore, issued a charge-sheet and a regular as well as proper enquiry was held against him in which his misconduct was fully established, so, he was properly dismissed from service.
4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits-in-evidence and they were duly cross-examined.
Thereafter, the learned Labour Court had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant, hence, the present appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. S.P. Lodhi, the learned representative for the appellant and Mr. Siddique Mirza, 'the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent establishment. It is an admitted position by the, appellant himself that inter-transfers did take place between Hotel' Jabees and its other establishments and that he was transferred to the Kababish. It is further admitted position that the appellant was initially appointed as a Room Bearer and that he had actually joineu at the Kababish as a Waiter and that, thereafter, he had himself chosen to remain absent from the duties. It was again admitted by the appellant that he was issued a charge-sheet for unauthorisedly remaining absent and that a proper and regular domestic enquiry was conducted against him in which he was afforded full opportunity to defend himself on the charge and that as he was found guilty ox the misconduct, so he was removed from the service. The appellant did not allege mala fide which established that there was no pre-planned action against the appellant by transferring him from Hotel Jabees as a Room Bearer to Kababish as a Waiter. Admittedly, there was no change in the terms and conditions of the employment and that the A category of a Room Bearer and a Waiter was one and the same. The appellant had himself admitted that he had taken over as Kababish and thereafter chosen to remain unauthorisedly absent with a view to get himself re-transferred for which misconduct, he should thank himself. The respondent establishment did not commit any illegality or irregularity and had not acted upon in a mala fide manner in taking lawful and proper action against the appellant. It is an admitted principle that the employer has the right and sole discretion to utilise services of an employee in the manner, most suitable in the interest of the business, to ensure better prospects, profits and to arrange and re-arrange the same and the work force, as he considered proper, without changing terms and conditions of service and emoluments of the employee. Here, in the present case, neither the terms anti conditions of the appellant nor his emoluments were changed by transferring him from Hotel Jabees as a Room Bearer to Kababish as a Waiter, therefore, the respondent establishment was right and correct in taking action against the appellant and so, the learned Labour Court has rightly dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant.
6. For the above reasons, I see no reason to interfere in the impugned order and would maintain the impugned order. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed.