DECISION ' This is an application under section 38(7) of IRO, 1969 for transfer of the case from the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, IV at Karachi to any other Court.
2. I have heard Mr. A. De Cruz for the Applicant and Mr. Abdul Hafeez for the respondent and have also gone through the papers and documents filed alongwith the transfer application.
3. In the application itself, no ground for transfer is shown, but in affidavit in support of the application it is alleged, that the trial Judge is prejudiced against Applicant and that on 13-9-1990 he had called the applicant in his chamber and asked him to get his case transferred.
4. The applicant has also filed affidavit of three persons namely Ashfaq, Qalandar and Duriyaman to the effect that the learned Judge shouted in the Court in some other proceedings on 17-12-1988.
It may be pointed that the cases of Qalandar Khan and Duriyaman were admittedly ordered to be transferred from the Court of the learned Presiding Officer by this Tribunal on the request made by the learned Presiding Officer himself. Ashfaq Ahmed does not appear to have any business to be present in the Court except that he happened to be present when case of Qalandar Khan was taken. The two cases in which the learned Judge is alleged to have shouted stand transferred on the request of the learned Judge himself and therefore, it is a closed chapter. The cases were not transferred because of alleged conduct of the learned Judge of the Labour Court.
5. It may be pointed that the applicant had admittedly made three applications for summoning of witnesses of the respondent to produce certain documents, which were rejected and Revision Application was disposed of by this Tribunal by an order dated 6-12-1990. In that Revision Application no allegation was made that the learned Judge had directed the applicant to get his case transferred. However, in the affidavit it is alleged by the applicant that on 13-9-1990 and 31-10- 1990 and also on subsequent dates, which are not specified in the affidavit, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court had so directed the respondent. These dates are obviously prior to the date, when this Tribunal had passed the order in Revision Application which is dated 6-12-1990. This allegation is' therefore an afterthought and is belied from the record itself.
6. Had the learned Presiding Officer wanted to get his case transferred, he would have made such request as was made in the cases of Qalandar Khan and Duriyaman. The application appears to be filed because of the fact that the request of the applicant for summoning of the witness and the documents were not accepted by the learned Labour Court, which cannot be considered as valid ground for moving such transfer application. Such frivolous transfer application cannot be allowed and is rejected. The learned Labour Court is directed to proceed with the case and dispose it of as early as possible as directed by this Tribunal in the order dated 6-12-1990. If any party fails to attend the Court or fails to produce its witnesses it will do so at its own risk.