' This is an appeal emerging from the decision dated 1-6-1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 7, Gujranwala, whereby the grievance petition of the appellants whereby they had challenged their transfer, was dismissed.
2. The appellants, who are lady teachers, were transferred from one school of the Municipal Corporation to another. In the written statement it was pleased that the school not being a commercial establishment or an industry, the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 are not applicable to it. This plea has found favour with the learned lower Court. The learned lower Court has also held that the transfer with other teachers was made in the interest of the public and not on account of any complaint and, therefore, did not amount to imposition of punishment and thus could not be challenged. The learned lower Court did not invite any evidence and dismissed the petition in limine. The point whether the respondent school was or not a commercial establishment could be decided only after issuing notice to the respondents and inviting evidence. The question arises whether the school is independent or is part of the Municipal Committee. Municipal Committee admittedly being an industry and covered by the definition of factory was subject to Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and only if it had been proved that the School was independent and a separate entity and not part of the Municipal Corporation, only then it could be said that it was not a commercial establishment.
However, since the appellants were transferred from one school to the other situated in the same city and their posts being transferable, there was no cause for them to challenge the order. If they had been transferred out of the city or another city situated at a far-off place, of course, they being ladies could have challenged the transfer. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to show that the appellants have any right guaranteed by any law, settlement or award and that any such right has been infringed. This is also not the case of the appellants that their stay in the school from which they have been transferred was short. So, it cannot be said that the transfer was vexatious. The learned lower Court thus has rightly dismissed the grievance petition of the appellants.
3. As upshot of the observations made above, the appeal fails and is dismissed.