' This order will dispose of Petitions No, 4-A(797)/91-L and No,4-A(952)/91-L. The first petition was filed by Muhammad Ihtishamul Haq a Packer in the Foreign Post Office G.P.O., Lahore in BPS-2 and two others namely Muhammad Lateef Chaudhry and Adam Khan Niazi, both Supervisors in Grade B-9 and posted in Foreign Post Office Unit of the G.P.O., Lahore. The petitioner Muhammad Ihtishamul Haq was originally a Coolie in the Post Office but was later on appointed as a Packer in the Foreign Office Wing of the G.P.O. As a Packer on purely temporary basis and subject to clearance in the departrmental test. By order dated 22-8-1991 Annexure 'D' with the petition filed by Ihtishamul Haq, the PMG passed transfer orders of.12 persons including the three petitioners. The services of Ihtishamul Haq were allocated to Lahore District North but vide subsequent order dated 24-8-1991 Annexure `E' his allocation was made to South District. Muhammad Zubair Ahmad, who was then Mail Peon in Northern Lahore District was appointed in place of Ihtishamul Haq as a Packer in Foreign Post Office. Ihtishamul Haq and his other co-petitioners moved an application on 29-8-1991 under section 22-A(8)(g) read with section 15(1)(c) and (e) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 against this transfer impleading the Postmaster General and Assistant Postmaster General (Staff), Lahore and Superintendent, Foreign Post Office, GPO, Lahore as respondents. It was stated in the petition that the working of the Post Offices was exclusively spread over three wings of the department namely, Foreign Post Office Unit, Post Offices, and Railway Mail Service. It was submitted that training meant for imparting to the employees of each wing is entirely different from each other and their mutual transfers are not contemplated by law. It was further submitted that the CBAs in the three different wings were different and the membership of the National Organisation of Postal Employees CBA (which is called NOPE for the sake of abbreviation) is confined to the workers in the Foreign Post Office Wing of the Postal Department. Ihtishamul Haq claimed that he was Chairman of the NOPE (CBA), to the extent of Foreign Post Unit, at Lahore and the other two petitioners were also Members of the NOPE. It was urged on this ground that transfer of the petitioners from the Foreign Post Office Wing would deprive them of their legitimate trade union activities and their transfers amounted to unfair labour 'practice. It was further alleged that Ihtishamul Haq had been elected for a period of two years on 23-8-1990 and the other co- petitioners were also active members of the union and were prominent in the struggle for obtaining redress for the grievances of the workers but the respondents did not like their trade union activities and pressurised them to leave the NOPE Union failing which they were threatened with repressive action. The order of transfer according to the petitioners was the result of their refusal to abide by the wishes of the respondents. It was also said that it was rather extraordinary that an officer of a high status such as Postmaster General had ordered transfer of Ihtishamul Haq, who was in BPS-2.
' The learned Member passed an order on 29-8-1991 calling for parawise comments from the respondent for 22-9-1991 and further directing that the position prevailing on that date shall not be altered and petitioner No,1 shall not be relieved. The stand of the Department was that the name of Ihtishamul Haq had been struck off from the Foreign Post Office on 27-8-1991 (Annexure 'A' page 64 of Zubair's petition) and thereafter he applied for sick leave from 28-8-1991. The documents placed on record show that his application for leave and medical certificate were referred to Superintendent, Post Office, District Lahore South G.P.O., Lahore under whom he had been posted after his transfer (page 70 of Zubair's file). Being dissatisfied with the attitude of the Department, Ihtishamul Haq filed a petition for contempt No,7(440)/91-L on 12-9-1991 and it appears that perhaps it was under the pressure of the notice for contempt that by order dated 30-10-1991 (page 5 of the Petition No, 4A (952)/91-L by Muhammad Zubair Ahmad) Ihtishamul Haq was permitted to assume duty vice Muhammad Zubair Ahmad who had been previously appointed in his place. The learned counsel for the department informed the Court on 30-10-1991 that Ihtishamul Haq had been put back to duty in the Foreign Post and the contempt proceedings were ultimately dropped to 14-11-1991 after an apology for delay had been rendered by the respondents.
2. Muhammad Zubair Ahmad challenged the order of his transfer dated 30-10-1991 and filed a Petition No, 4A(952)/91-L which came up for hearing' before me on 31-10-1991. I asked for parawise comments without of course issuing any stay order. It may be stated here that it appears from the record that petitioners 2 and 3 had joined their new places of posting on 28-8-1991 and do not appear to have taken any interest in this case although the plea of Ch. Ghulam Qadir, the learned Advocate for the petitioner was that they had joined as a result of duress.. The case so far as petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned has therefore, already met its fate.
3. On 29-9-1991 Rana Umer Hayat, Assistant Superintendent, Post Offices representing respondents Nos, 1 and 3 requested Doctor Munir Ahmad Mughal to grant time to file a reply to the petition of Ihtishamul Haq and the case was adjourned to 30th January, 1992. The case however, came up for hearing before the date fixed on 14-11-1991 when the reply was filed. On the same day, Muhammad Zubair petitioner in Petition No, 4A(952)/91-L applied to the learned Member to be impleaded as a party. The case was adjourned to 21-11-1991 for considering the arguments on stay application and for reply to the application of Muhammad Zubair for being impleaded as a party. But on the same day, the counsel for the parties invited the attention of the learned Member to the fact that Muhammad Zubair had already filed a petition before the Chairman namely Case No, 4A(952)/91-L and requested that the matter be sent to the Chairman for appropriate order. The parties appeared before me on 21-11-1991 and I proceeded to hear both the petitions.
In the written statement filed by the respondents in the petition filed by Ihtishamul Haq the jurisdiction of this Commission was assailed on the ground that petitioner was a civil servant and could be transferred anywhere in Pakistan and his transfer was in the G.P.O. But only on a different scat. It was further submitted that the publication of certain news about the smuggling of arms through the foreign post, wing was giving a bad name to the department and it was on this account that the petitioner and some others were transferred from the Foreign Post Office. It was further stated that the petitioners Nos, 2 and 3 had already assumed duty on 28-8-1991 but this fact was suppressed in the petition filed by them. It was further pointed out that Muhammad Zubair had taken up his duty in place of Ihtishamul Haq on 29-8-1991 before intimation of stay order and that petitioner No, 1 i,e, Ihtishamul Haq was on sick leave from 28-8-1991 to 31-8-1991 but he concealed this fact in the petition and if he was actually sick he could not have appeared in Court on 29-8-1991. In para.6 it was pointed out that there were complaints against the petitioner's conduct and he had been censured and had also been suspended during the tenure of his service.
The allegations about the unfair labour practice and pressure by the respondents was denied and it was said that the transfers were made according to law and all of them in Lahore. It was further stated that the petitioner had already been relieved on 27-8-1991 and Muhammad Zubair Ahmad was working in his place. The same assertion was made in reply to the stay application. Certain cuttings from the newspapers were also placed on record to show that the working of the Foreign desk in the Post Office came under criticism by the daily Press. It also appears from the cutting dated 31-12-1990 from the Daily Pakistan, Lahore that the co-petitioners of Ihtishamul Haq namely Muhammad Lateef Chaudhry and Adam Khan Niazi were arrested in connection with the smuggling of arms. The copy of the F.I.R. Dated 30-12-1990 lodged in the Police Station of Old Anarkali, Lahore also shows that the names of Muhammad Lateef Chaudhry and Adam Khan Supervisor in the Foreign Post Office have been mentioned as accused persons.
4. It is, therefore, possible to presume that the orders of the transfer of petitioners by the Postmaster General were motivated with the desire to clear the stables and get rid of undesirable persons.
True that Ihtishamul Haq has not been mentioned in these reports but the Departmental Officers may have their own information and estimation sufficient to remove him also from the Foreign Post Office. At least written statement filed by the Department shows that this was so. No departmental rule or law was quoted before me to show that a person serving in one wing of the department cannot be transferred to another wing. On the other hand under Schedule No, VII of the Schedule of Administrative Powers of the Head of Circles (Post Office Manual Vol. III) it is mentioned in paras. 4 and 5 that these officers have the powers of transfer of any person within their Circles for administrative reasons in the identical cadre. There is a general provision in para. 37 of Chapter II of the Post and Telegraph Manual, Vol. IV that all officials of the department are liable to be transferred to any part of Pakistan unless it is expressly provided otherwise for any particular class or classes of officials. Again in Chapter 13 of Vol. VI of the Post and Telegraph Manual it is emphasised in sub-para. 2 of para. 735 that the Packers should be men of good character as they have opportunities of stealing and tampering with the unregistered letters without little risk of detection.
' Departmental Officers who are conversant with the inner working in their own sphere of Administration thought it proper to transfer Ihtishamul Haq from Foreign Post Office to another place in the same Circle. The petitioner had attached copies of certain correspondence which shows that the CBA had been corresponding with the Administration in regard to its affairs and the Administration was informed by letter dated 28-9-1991 that a Works Council had been formed.
Alongwith the letter a list of office-bearers was also forwarded in which the name of Muhammad Ihtishamul Haq appears as Chairman. The fact that Ihtishamul Haq had been elected as a Chairman of the CBA in Southern Circle, Punjab does not take away the power of the department to transfer him for administrative reasons. It is only under certain circumstances mentioned in section 8A and clause (d) of subsection (1) of section 15 of the I.R.O., 1969 that the law prohibits the transfer of a worker from one place to another. None of these circumstances appears in the case of Ihtishamul Haq. A large number of cases were cited at the Bar in support of the proposition canvassed by the learned counsel but none of them is applicable to the facts of this case. Most of them deal with the competence of the National Industrial Relations Commission, to grant interim, relief to a petitioner. There cannot be any cavil with this proposition but each case has to be decided on its facts.
5. No instances of any clash or hostility have been cited in support of the allegations of interference with the trade union activities of the petitioner. The allegations were squarely denied by the department. It is a simple case of transfer of an employee in another branch of the department, fiecessitated by administrative reasons. The allegation of unfair labour practice remains unproved and ordinarily there does not appear to be any reason why the respondents should single out Ihtishamul Haq for pressurising him to leave his trade union. They are high Government officers and they cannot have personal animus in showing hostility to a certain trade union or its officers. It may be pointed that transfer of Ihtishamul Haq is one link in a chain of transfer orders of 12 persons.
Some of which belong to other wings of the Postal Department and this in itself not only meets the objection of the learned counsel that no inter-wing transfers can be made but also indicates that chain of transfers has been ordered for administrative considerations. The petition of Ihtishamul Haq therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.
6. So far as Petition No, 4A(952)/91-L by Muhammad Zubair Ahmad is concerned it appears that Muhammad Zubair was appointed as a Mail Peon initially by order dated 8-8-1990 in Grade B-2 on purely temporary basis in Mozang Post Office. He was however, posted in Foreign Post Office in place of Ihtishamul Haq by order dated 22-8-1991. He was transferred back as a Mail Peon on 30- 10-1991 in the circumstances narrated above. His plea is that he has been transferred from Foreign Post Office as a measure of victimisation and unfair labour practice on the part of the Postmaster General and the Superintendent Foreign Post Office. It is not even alleged that he is a member of any trade union. He is merely a temporary hand and his petition has been opposed by the Department and naturally by Ihtishamul Haq also. His petition is without any substance and is also dismissed. As a result of this, both the petitions fail and the department shall be free to implement their orders dated 22-8-1991 and 24-8-1991 with or without modifications which may have been necessitated for administrative reasons.