ORDER This is an application for transfer of , from the 3rd Sind Labour Court, Karachi, to any other Labour Court.
2. There are four main grounds on which transfer is sought, namely : (1) That the notes of the arguments on behalf of the applicant were missing from the record of the case ; (2)
That the learned Labour Court has expressed adverse prejudicial opinion against the applicant, as the applicant could not oblige the learned Labour Court; (3) That the Presiding Officer of Labour Court No. 3, does not like Mr. A. Majeed, the Representative of the applicant; and (4) That the appointment of the Presiding Officer of Labour Court No. 3, was challenged by Mr. Majeed, on the ground that it was against the mandatory provisions of subsection (3) of section 35 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. 1969. The suggestion being that it has led to the prejudice against Mr. Majeed.
3. A copy of the transfer application was sent to the learned Presiding Officer. He has offered his remarks. He has denied all the allegations made against him. It, however, appears from the remarks that there was some unpleasant incident between the learned Presiding Officer and Mr. A Majeed in some other case.
4. Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, the leamed Representative, who appeared for the opposite-party, stated that he had no objection if the appeal was transferred to some other Court. Ordinarily, I would have accepted the concession made by the opposite-party and would have transferred the case from Labout Court No. 3, to another Labour Court. In the present case, however, I am reluctant to do so, without examining the serious allegations made by the applicant against the Court and whether they are sufficient to raise an apprehension in the mind of a reasonable person that he would not get justice from the Court.
5. The learned Presiding Officer has denied the allegation that he is prejudiced against Mr. A. Maj.'ed. Even assuming that the Court is prejudiced against Mr. A Majeed, it cannot be to mv mind a sufficient ground to transfer the case from his Court to any other Court. 1 cannot possibly assume that prejudice against a particu'ar Representative is or will operate as prejudice against the party or his case. Tne tradition of judiciary in this country under which the learned Presiding Officer has gained experience and maturity dispels any such belief that he will victimise or be unfair to the party because there was an unpleasant incident between the Presiding Officer and the party's Representative in some other case, lt would be a dangerous principle to establish that the moment a Judge falls out with a Representative or vice versa, the case should be transferred from that Judge to some other Judge. On the other hand, if there is a reasonable ground for supposing that the prejudice against the Representative has, in any way or measure affected the judicial approach of the Court in the case before him, transfer should be ordered. In this connection, reference may be made to the cases of Mila Naramma (1), Rakhia and others (2) and Abdul Ghafoor (3).
6. After going through the remarks of the learned Presiding Officer I am satisfied that no reasonable grounds have been established that the learned Judge would not do justice in the appeal before him.
7. The uncalled for and baseless insinuations and suggestions are likely to demoralise the Courts and hamper administration of justice. As it is, the Labour Courts are working under great straint and pressure, I would suggest, considering the number of Lab >ur Courts, that some legislation may be introduced so that persons appearing for parties in labour cases can be debarred from practice for their conduct, which is likely to affect justice. Punishment for Contempt of Couit does not debar a person from practice.
8. For the reasons given above, I would dismiss the application. (1) AIR 1926 Mad. 359 (2) AIR 1934 Lah. 595 (3) PLD 1963 Kar. 781