Muhammad Jamil petitioner joined the service of Wapda as a Tracer on 9-6-1975 as would appear from page 2 of copy of the Service Book. He was promoted as a Draftsman by order dated 21-4- 1984 and he reported his arrival to the Resident Engineer, Wapda at Lahore on 24-4-1984. Since then he continues to serve as a Draftsman and it would appear from para 12 of the petition that his claim is that he did not earn any bad report and his Annual Confidential Reports are "excellent". He was transferred to Chistian somewhere in August, or September, 1992 and he submitted an appeal to the Chief Engineer, Rahimyar Khan for transfer back to Lahore on compassionate grounds stating that his father was too old and that his mother was a chronic patient and was suffering from mental disorder. In this connection the Vice --Chairman of the trade union also addressed a letter on 20-9-1992 (Annex-H) to the Deputy Director concerned supporting his plea for re-transfer to Lahore. The plea of the petitioner found favour with the General Manager concerned and by order dated 24-10-1992 he was transferred back to Lahore with immediate effect and placed at the disposal of the Project Director, Building Directorate WAPDA, Lahore. It would appear from Annex-C, which is an application dated 8-3-1993 that the petitioner after his transfer back to Lahore applied for leave for three months from 23-2-1993 to 22-5-1993 for the repair of his house at Faisalabad, which according to him was in a state of speedy deterioration. He submitted in this application that his parents were too old and sick and unable to perform the job and he being the only "adult" member had to attend to this work of urgent nature. It appears from para. 2 of this petition that he had grievance that in spite of lapse of one month in spite of personal requests to the Project Director,' his application for leave was not being considered. It however, appears from the record that the petitioner was allowed leave for sixty-five days and after he reported for duty, the Project Director on 26-5-1993 addressed a letter (Annex. B) to the General Manager, Central Division, New Garden Town, Lahore stating that Muhammad Jamil had joined his office on 29-10-1992 but was not taking interest in his work and had remained on leave for sixty-five days during this period. It was mentioned that Muhammad Jamil was a promottee to the rank of Draftsman but did not possess the minimum skill of a Draftsman and also was not a willing worker. Thereafter, on 19-6- 1993 the General Manager passed an order (Annex. E) ordering the transfer of the petitioner from Building Directorate, Lahore to Simply Dam Project, Islamabad as against Muhammad Mansha respondent No. 4 in this petition who was to move first from Simply Dam Project, Islamabad to Lahore in place of the petitioner. The transfer order said that no TA or DA or transfer grant will be allowed to Muhammad Mansha as he had been transferred at his own request.
2. The petitioner thereafter filed a petition on the ground that he was an active member of Hydro- Electric Central Labour Union and had been ordered to be transferred from Lahore to Islamabad as a measure of victimisation on account of his trade union activities. He further submitted that according to the policy of the Department he could not be transferred out -of the Region. I passed an order on 23-9-1993 that if the substitute of the petitioner has not taken over from him, the transfer order shall be kept in abeyance.
3. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 it was stated that the petitioner was not holder of any office in the Labour Union. It was also pointed out that the petitioner had approached the Labour Court on the same cause of action but had withdrawn his petition unconditionally, therefore, the second petition before this Commission was barred. It was denied that the letter (Annex. B) addressed by the Project Director to the General Manager was malicious.
It was on the other hand alleged that the petitioner was incompetent and the aforesaid letter was an honest comment on his work. It was asserted that the transfer order had been passed in the interest of the authority and the allegation that the respondents Nos.1 to 3 were actuated by malice or ill-will or were guilty of unfair labour practice was specifically denied. It was admitted that Muhammad Mansha respondent No.4 was the junior most draftsman and had been promoted as a draftsman and was on probation but it was submitted that there was no restriction on the transfer of a probationer from one office to another. In answer to paras 10 and 11 it was vehemently denied that the mother of the petitioner was chronic patient and was suffering from mental disorder and it was pointed out that the petitioner had not placed any document on record to support this assertion. In reply to para 12 of the petition wherein the petitioner had claimed that he had not earned a single adverse report during his tenure as draftsman and that his Annual Confidential Reports were "excellent", the written statement averred that it was a matter of record but it was further added that the petitioner had been transferred for his incompetency and lack of interest in his work. The petitioner's assertion that he was being victimised was also repudiated and it was submitted that the impugned transfer order had been issued in official routine and no inquiry was called for in the circumstances of the case. As to the assertion of the petitioner that his transfer had been made against the relevant rules of the authority it was stated that the petitioner had grossly misread and misinterpreted the relevant rules and that there is no bar on the transfer of inefficient and indisciplined employee. The petitioner on his part has said in the petition that he was not an unwilling worker and that he had proceeded on leave due to domestic circumstances and during his whole career he had availed of 15 days medical leave besides the leave for two months which was granted to him in Lahore in the year 1993 and leave equal to seven hundred eighty-eight days was still due to him. Muhammad Mansha respondent No. 4 did not file any written statement but he did appear on various hearings.
4. The fact that Muhammad Mansha was a junior most draftsman and had been promoted and had not yet completed the period of one year's of probation is established on record. It also appears from the order of transfer that the transfer was made in his interest at his request and he was for this reason not allowed any TA. DA and transfer charges. It has not been shown as to in what way Muhammad Mansha was more efficient than the petitioner. His transfer from Simply Dam Project Islamabad to Lahore during the period of his probation appears to be rather an unusual step certainly not in the interest of the administration. If Muhammad Jamil was inefficient and an unwilling worker some more senior person or efficient person could have been brought in his place. The petitioner's claim that he had consistently good record of service has not been denied and a straight reply to this assertion has been put off by saying that it is a matter of record.
In the light of this fact the assertion that the letter of the Project Director dated 26-5-1993 wherein the petitioner had been described as inefficient and not upto the mark should not have been made the basis for his transfer appears to have some weight. Even in the written statement no instances of acts of commission or commission on the part of the petitioner were mentioned. The contention raised before me by the petitioner was that this letter by the Project Director was a manoeuvre to damage the petitioner and favour Muhammad Mansha who was yet to complete his probation. It appears from the facts of this case that the Project Director and the petitioner had no love lost between them and that the petitioner had a grievance that his leave application was not being attended to. The Project Director on his part after the return of the petitioner from leave issued a letter dated 26-5-1993 (Annex-B) which clearly shows that the Project Director had formed an adverse opinion against the petitioner as against the previous good record claimed by the petitioner which claim remained un-rebutted in the written statement. The record, therefore, speaks out that for some reasons not disclosed, the transfer order was passed not for administrative reasons but in order to punish the petitioner and to show favour to Muhammad Mansha.
5. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner was that his transfer was against the departmental policy. He in this connection relied on Telex message dated 5-1-1992 (Annex-J) issued by Raja Nadir Pervaiz, Minister of State for Water and Power, Islamabad to' the Acting Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore wherein the attention of the Chairman was invited to the instructions issued on 27-10-1991 that the lower grade persons may not be transferred outside the Region.
Another Telex message dated 9-12-1989 from the Secretary, WAPDA, Lahore to All Chairmen Area Electricity Boards of WAPDA (Annex. K) was placed on the record to show that indiscriminate postings and transfers of lower staff in BPS-1 to 15 were to be avoided and in future no posting or transfer of lower staff were to be made except for technical/operational reasons without clearance from the Chairman, WAPDA. The learned counsel for the petitioner stressed the point that in this case approval of the Chairman, WAPDA had not been obtained. Reliance was further placed on office memorandum dated 13-10-1992 (Annex. L) wherein it was said that genuine cases of compassion and hardships, personal problems and other related service matters, will receive sympathetic consideration of the Authority provided these are addressed to the competent authority through proper channel. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that previously the transfer of the petitioner from Chishtian was ordered on account of the fact that the petitioner had stated that his father was old and infirm and his mother was a chronic patient suffering from mental disorder. He emphatically argued that the assertion made in the written statement that mother of the petitioner was not suffering from mental disorder was incorrect as this fact was considered as far back as October, 1992 and made the basis of the cancellation of the transfer of the petitioner to Chishtian.
5-A. In my view the petitioner has made out a case that the present transfer was not in the interest of Authority or Administration and that it was an act of favour to Muhammad Mansha respondent No. 4 which resulted in dislocation and disturbance in the personal affairs of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 to 3 on the other hand stressed that the petitioner was not a workman but was a civil servant in any case there was no taint of unfair labour practice in this case. The learned counsel pointed out that the petitioner was not an office-bearer of the trade union and in any case he has not cited any instance of his trade union activities, which may have caused annoyance to respondents Nos. 1 to 3. The petitioner has asserted in his petition that respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were against his union activities and that respondent No. 3 had summoned the petitioner in his office on 16-2-1992 and had asked him to give up his trade union activities failing which he was threatened with transfer outside Lahore and spoilation of his Annual Confidential Reports. This allegation has vehementally been denied by the respondents and there is no further evidence to show that the petitioner has been punished for his trade union activities.
This transfer may be tendencious and malicious but it does not appear from the record that it had been motivated by unfair labour practice. The Supreme Court held in PLD 1988 SC 53 that the NIRC had no general jurisdiction and may take cognizance of the case only which were streaked with unfair labour practice.
6. In view of this, I find that petitioner has not made out a case of unfair labour practice and on this account his petition is hereby dismissed. I may however, observe that law has placed number of restraints on the right of the workers of Wapda to approach Labour Court and other tribunal for redress of their grievance4 and in view of this a correspondingly high responsibility rests with the Administration to see that no wrong is done to the employees of the Wapda in the administrative affairs. I therefore, direct that a copy of this order be sent to the Chairman of the WAPDA so that he may consider the question of giving relief to the petitioner in terms of para 2 of the office memorandum dated 13-10-1992 (Annex-L) issued by the Managing Director Administration.