ORDER This is an application under section 36-C(b) for transfer of an application from Labour Court No. V to some other Labour Court. The main ground for transfer alleged in this application is that the learned Presiding Officer is on friendly terms with the Management and that the learned Court refused to entertain a complaint under section 53 (1-A) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance.
2. I had sent copy of the application to the learned Presiding Officer for his remarks. The remarks have been received. He had denied the allegation of friendly terms with the Management. He admits that he did not entertain the application under section 53 (1-A) on the ground that the cases of unfair labour practice are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Commission. At the very outset I would observe that in applications for transfer of cases pending before the Courts all that I have to see is as to whether the conduct and behaviour of the learned Presiding Judge was such which would cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of a person that he would not get justice from the Court. It has been uniform practice in the High Court to accept the Statement of the Judges whenever an allegation about intimacy and friendship is made unless there be some circumstance which supports the allegation of the applicant. In cases where there is word against word the Statement of Judges is accepted. I would accept the Statement of the learned Court that he was not on friendly terms with the Management.
3. Now I would proceed with the other allegation of the applicant. The complaint was, as stated by Mr. K. R. J an, under section 53 (1-A). It reads as under :-- "Whoever contravenes the provisions of section 15 shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to four years or with fine which ' maj extend to five thousand rupees or with both." It seems to me that the Court while refusing to entertain the said application had section 22 (8) (g) in its mind. It reads as under:-- "The following shall be the functions of the Commission, namely :-- (g) to deal with cases of unfair labour practices on the part of the employers or workmen, whether individually or collectively, and to take, in such manner as may be prescribed, measures calculated to prevent an employer or workman from committing an unfair labour practice." In this connection a reference may be made to section 22-A (11) which reads as under :-- "Save as provided in subsections (10-A) and (l2), no Registrar, Labour Court or Tribunal shall take any action, or entertain any application or proceedings, in respect of any matter which falls within the jurisdiction of the Commission." It appears to me that the learned Court while returning the complaint had in its mind the provisions reproduced above. On the other hand Mr. K.
R. Jan relied on section 22-A (l2) which reads as under :-- "Nothing in this section shall be deemed to exclude the jurisdiction of a Junior Labour Court or a Labour Court to entertain cases of unfair labour practices on the part of employers or workmen, whether individually or collectively i Provided that no Court, including a Junior Labour Court and Labour Court, shall take any action or entertain any application or proceedings in respect of a case of unfair labour practices which is being dealt with by the Commission." Mr. Jan also relied on section 64 of the Ordinance of 1969 which reads as under :-- "No Court other than a Labour Court or that of a Magistrate of the First Class shall try any offence punishable under this Ordinance". Mr. Jan contended relying on section 22-A (l2) and section 64 of the Ordinance that the learned Court should have entertained the complaint In transfer applications I am not to sit in appeal against orders of PresidingL Officers. The simple question in transfer application is whether the applicant) has been able to make out any ground which could give reasonable apprehension in one's mind that he would not get justice from the Court. The mere fact that the learned Court has exercised discretion wrongly if at all would not be a ground for transfer. It has been conceded by Mr. K. R. Jan that the Union went, after the learned Court refused to take back complaint to the Industrial Relations Commission of Pakistan.
For the reasons given above I do not think that ground for transfer of application has been made out. The application is dismissed.