' Nazir Akhter Kamray, the petitioner in this case is a Junior Assistant in the Pakistan Steel Mills, Lahore. He joined service of the establishment on 2441-1983 and was posted under the General Manager (A&P) Central Administration, Karachi. He was transferred to Lahore in 1988 and joined his new place of posting on 21-2-1988. He alongwith other workers of the Regional Office at Lahore formed a trade union by the name of Ittehad Workers Union Pakistan Steel, Regional Office, Lahore which was registered by the Registrar of Trade Unions, Lahore Region on 5-9-1990. The office- bearers of the trade union applied for holding of referendum for determination of CBA on 9th September, 1990 which move was opposed by the Administration and the Registrar of Trade Unons vide letter dated 19-11-1990 rejected the petition of the union for holding referendum for determination of CBA. A Writ Petition No, 8905/90 in the Lahore High Court was filed and admitted to a regular hearing. While the writ petition was pending, the General Manager (A&P) Pakistan Steel, Central Administeration, Karachi, Respondent No, 1 passed an order on 31-3-1991 directing the transfer of 23 persons out of which five were office-bearers of the union out of eight and other eight were active Members of the union. All of them were transfered to Karachi including the petitioner.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that this wholesale transfer order was passed in order to weaken the strength of the union at Lahore. The union filed Civil Misc: No, 1448/91 in the aforesaid Writ petition and the learned Single Judge, suspended the operation of the transfer order dated 31- 3-1991 to the extent of the office-bearers and members of the newly formed union which included the name of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that on account of the pressure put on the office-bearers and members of the union, the union was compelled to withdraw the writ petition and thereafter Respondent No, 1 withdrew the order of the transfer dated 31-3-1991 on 9-4-1991. A No,2 started members of also to force filed. With a the CBA. It based on f withdrawal passing in this conn issued on 1 Member sit No,4A(653)/ Member, on respondents. The Union o Trade Union mentioned employer P President, the Depot, Kot thereafter the dated 18-8-1 this order joining repo dated 19-8-1 The case of to alienate Regional 0 is sought to petitioner as order was n employed aft petitioner legitimate trading to the averments in para 7 of the petition, the respondent. Recording adverse remarks against the office-bearers and active he union with a view to injure them in the course of service as he members of the union to withdraw the writ petition which was to obtain an order holding secret ballot for determination of is further submitted that respondent No, 2 issued charge-sheet e pretext to the General Secretary of the union. After the f the transfer order dated 31- 3-1991, the respondents started orders of members of the union one after the other. Reference ion was made to the transfer order of Mr. Nasir Mehmood Khan -1991 the operation of which was suspended by the learned at Lahore on 20-6-1991 vide order passed in Case 1-L. As the said order was not complied with, the learned a contempt having been moved, issued bailable warrants of the petitioner was elected as one of the two Vice-Presidents of 23-5-1991 and the change was acknowledged by the Registrar of s, vide letter dated 6-1-1991 wherein the petitioner has been Vice- President. A copy of the letter was endorsed to thePakistan Steel Regional Office, Lahore. After his election as Vice-petitioner was transferred from Regional office to Lahore Sale khpat, by order dated 30-7-1991. (Annexure 'H'). About 18 days petitioner, was transferred from Lahore to Karachi by order 1 a copy of which is Annexure T. There was endorsement on acting the Deputy General Manager, Pay Roll, that in case his is not received, his pay may be stopped. The relieving order was 1 (Annexure K) and delivered to the petitioner on 20-8-1991. e petitioner is that his transfer to Karachi is actuated by a desire d exclude the petitioner from his trade union activities in the at Lahore where there are only 40 members and their number diminished by transfer of its office-bearers and members. The red in clause (b) of his grounds at page no.7 that his transfer I passed in the interest of service because seven persons were r 10-4-1991 to perform the duties like that of the petitioner. The submits that apart from depriving the petitioner from his de union activities, the transfer order will result in extreme his family matters and will put financial strain on him, and his rs will be torn at two places as a result of the transvestite came up for hearing before me on 22-8- 1991 and it was t no substitute had taken over in place of the petitioner. On the bmission, I suspended the operation of the transfer order dated relieving order dated 19-8-1991. The written statement was filed d it was asserted that the transfer was the right of the employer ndent No, 2 had nothing to do with the present case. It was that a CBA was already functioning in the establishment at Karachi and no referendum could be held for the determination of another CBA at Lahore. It was further submitted that the staff in Lahore was excessive and in order to save the persons who could possibly be affected by retrenchment, they have been transferred to Karachi. It was denied with reference to clause (b) of the grounds of the petition that respondent No,2 had employed any person "on regular basis" and it was stated that he was not competent to do so. It was pointed out in reply to clause (c) of the grounds that the strength of the unionised staff of the Pakistan Steel is over 20,000 persons and thus 40 odd members at Regional Office could not have any bearing on the referendum. It was asserted at the end that the petitioner could not claim to stay at Lahore on the pleas raised by him.
4. Now the short question for determination is whether the petitioner has been transferred for administrative reasons or for reasons connected with his legitimate trade union activities. The facts stated above show that by order dated 31-3-1991 five office-bearers and eight active members of.
The newly formed union were transferred to Karachi and the order was rescinded on 9-4-1991 possibly on account of the fact that the High Court had earlier suspended its operation. The transfers could not have been made during the pendency of proceedings for referendum before the Regional Registrar. The petitioner was posted in Lahore in February, 1988 and no official record has been produced, to show that his transfer back to Karachi had been necessitated on account of the fact that he had been found surplus at Lahore. On the other hand, the assertion in clause 'B'
(Page 7 of the grounds of petitioner) that seven persons had been employed after 10-4-1991 to perform the duties like that of the petitioner has not been categorically and squarly denied. It has only been said that no person has been employed on regular basis which may mean that some ad 'hoc appointments may have been made. The normal course is that when certain persons are found surplus some noting; is done giving the facts and figures and the approval of the competent authority is obtained either for transfer or for retrenchment. It appears to me that the application of the new trade union at Regional Office, Lahore was not palatable to the authorities who in the first instance passed an order containing a chain of 23 transfers and then selected the petitioner and his other colleagues for transfer. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed on record a Telex dated 25-11991 from the General Manager (A&P) Pakistan Steel to Mr. Bashir Ahmad Chohan, Deputy Secretary (marked A) in which it has been stated that 233 officers and 8522 workers are surplus in Karachi. As stated above, it has not been shown that the staff of the type of the petitioner at Lahore is surplus. The staff at Karachi has already swelled beyond the estimated limit. Therefore, it does not appear to me that the transfer of the petitioner has been ordered for administrative reasons. The new trade union was registered on 5th May, 1990 and it was after that, that the administration started passing transfer orders. The petitioner earned adverse remarks for the years, 1989 and 1990 which were recorded on 11-3-1991 and 12-3-1991, respectively wherein he had been adversely comended upon for his trade union activities although in 1989 the new trade union had not yet been registered and factually no remark could be made about his trade union activities in 1989. This would mean that any stick was considered good enough to bend him with.
These remarks were duly communicated to the petitioner and to my mind were actuated on account of the trade union activities of the petitioner which were not liked by the administration. It therefore appears to me that: the assertion of the petitioner that he has been transferred to Karachi on account of his trade union activities e has factual basis. The law on this subject is contained in section 15 of the Industrial Relations. Ordinance, 1969, and is reproduced below:- "15....... (1) No employer or trade union of employers and no person acting on behalf of either shall-- dismiss, discharge, remove from employment or transfer or threaten to dismiss, discharge or remove from employment or transfer a workman or injure or threaten to injure him in respect of his employment by reason that the workman---
(i) is or proposes to become, or seeks to persuade any other person to become, a member or officer of a trade union,
(ii) participates in the promotion, formation or activities of a trade union."
The staff at Karachi being already in excess and it having not been shown that the petitioner was surplus, the only conclusion that I can draw is that the transfer to Karachi has been ordered on account of the trade union activities of the petitioner.
5. I therefore set aside the order of transfer of the petitioner to Karachi dated 18-8-1991 and the relieving order dated 19-8-1991. The petitioner had complained on 15-9-1991 that his salary was not being paid to him and that he had been marked absent from 21-8-1991 to 26-8-1991. I direct that the petitioner shall be paid his dues up to date if they have already not been paid and that he shall be treated on duty for the period he had been marked absent. With these observations the petition is allowed with costs which are estimated to be Rupees Five hundred (Rs,500).