The 'petitioner, feeling aggrieved of the order dated 1-11-1993 (Annexure R-1) of respondent No.1 whereby they have been transferred from the City Branch, Rawalpindi of Habib Bank Ltd, to the Zonal Office, Rawalpindi, have approached this forum by filing petition under section 22-A (8) (g) of the IRO, 1969, accompanied by an application under sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 32 of the NIRC (Procedure & Functions) Regulations, 1973, complaining that the petitioners had been made target of excesses at the instance of respondent No.2, on account of their union activities as Office Secretary and District Secretary respectively of Habib Bank Employees Union, Rawalpindi- Islamabad/Murree Kahuta Zone. It was prayed that respondent No. 1 be directed not to commit any act of unfair labour practice against the petitioners by way of dismissal, termination removal discharged or transfer with further direction not to cause any injury to the employment of the petitioners.
2. In the comments furnished on behalf of respondent No.1, allegations of the petitioners were controverted, jurisdiction of the Commission was challenged and transfers were claimed to have been made in `routine'. Respondent No.2 in his comments also repudiated the accusations levelled against him by the petitioners and denied having had any hand to the transfers in question.
3. Appearing on behalf of the petitioners Mr. M. Akhtar Awan Advocate attempted to argue that the petitioners were subjected to victimization due to their union activities and that the transfers were made with the sole purpose to, prevent them to have contacts with the workers and office-bearers of the union and discuss with them the day to day problems of the union. The learned counsel also contended with reference to para-V of the petition that respondent No.2 was not favourably disposed towards the petitioners which obliged the petitioners to file Petition No. 4A (105)/93 alongwith stay application 24(182)/93 before this Commission to ventilate their grievances and that a prohibitory order was issued against respondent No.2. It was further submitted with reference to para. VII of the petition that the main aim behind the transfers was to dislodge the petitioners and render them helpless to have access to the workers and advance cause of the union. Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel urged that the action of the management was hit by the provisions of section 15(1) (d) (ii) of the IRO, 1969 and required reversal.
4. S. Rais Ahmad Jafri Advocate, learned counsel for respondent No 1 contended that after having availed the maximum stay at the City Branch, Rawalpindi, the petitioners were transferred in routine and the transfers involve no elements of unfair labour practice. In this connection my attention was invited to transfers of 59 employees of the Bank, which were ordered in 1993. The learned counsel on the strength of a case reported in PLD 1988 SC 53, assailed jurisdiction of the Commission and submitted that in view of the failure of the petitioners to establish a prima facie case of unfair labour practice, the Commission had do jurisdiction to interfere and give relief to the petitioners. Malik Meharban, learned- Representative for respondent No.2 also adopted the arguments addressed on behalf of respondent No.1 and contended, that the petitioners have approached this Commission with unclean hands by concealing material facts highlighted in their earlier petition No.4A (105)/93 alongwith Stay Application No.24 (182)/93 and as such they were not entitled for an equitable relief of ad interim injunction.
5. After hearing the arguments from both sides with reference to the pleadings of the parties, I find that this is a simple case of normal transfer from the City Branch, Rawalpindi to the. Zonal Office, Rawalpindi, distant 3/4 kilometres from the City Branch. It is not denied that petitioner No.1 was posted in the City Branch on 21-1-1988, whereas the date of posting of petitioner No.2 is.7-8-1990.
They have been transferred in routine after having availed the maximum stay at the City Branch.
Transfers made as a matter of general policy of shifting those who had completed special period of stay at one place is not objectionable as held in 1982 PLC 283. It may be pertinently mentioned here that in the year 1993, 59 employees of the Bank were ordered to be transferred in the interest of the Bank, which is clearly indicative of the fact that the transfers under reference, had also been made in good faith and in interest of the establishment. It was for the petitioners to show that the impugned transfer order was the result of the unfair labour practice but they have miserably failed to do so. I have already held in a number of cases that mere allegation that certain office-bearers of the union had been made target of excesses on account of their Union affairs is not sufficient.
The union must establish some fact or circumstances, which may have antagonized the management so as to victimise the person concerned for such activities. In this connection reference can be had to Arshad Mahmood v. Factory Manager, Gulshan Carpets Industries Limited, Lahore, 1994 PLC 31 (NIRC), Wherein the following observations were made: "The management has inherent right to transfer its employees for smooth running of its business and it cannot be challenged. Transfer is the prerogative of the employer. It is always ordered in the best interest of the establishment. The posting of an employee from one place of posting to another in the same establishment is the right of every management and does not constitute unfair labour practice. If an employees is aggrieved by his transfer he can only go to the appropriate forum for redress and not through a petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O, 1969------.The management has the right to utilize the services of its employees according to the needs and requirements of the establishment It is not denied that transfer of any member of the union does not essentially involve violation of the previsions of section 15(a)(d) of the IRO; which deals with cases of unfair labour practice on the part of employer and places restriction on his powers to dismiss, discharged, remove from employment (or transfer) a workman or injure or threaten to injure him in respect of his employment by reason that the workman is or proposes to become, or seeks to persuade any other person to become, a member or officer of a trade union, or participate in the promotion, formation or activities, of a trade union It is not denied that law does not give unrestricted licence to office-bearers/members of the union that they cannot be transferred by the. Management. The transfer can be ordered at any time and at any place in the interest of the management and it cannot be avoided in the name of union activities."
Again, in the case of Allied Bank Workers Union, Faisalabad v. Zonal Chief, Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd., Faisalabad Zonal Office and another 1994 PLC 131 (NIRC); while seized of transfer matter, the following observations were made by Commission: "The transfer of the, employees or even the office-bearers, of any trade union, is considered to be an exercise of the unfettered right of the employer and does not lead to any presumption of unfair labour practice ...Transfer is the discretion of the employer and unless such an order is alleged to be mala fide, it cannot be successfully challenged. The Courts of law are slow in interfering in transfer matters unless such transfers on the face of it, appear to be mala fide and tainted with extraneous considerations."
6. It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the petitioners that the hammer had fallen on the petitioners at the behest of respondent No.2 on account of their participation in legitimate and lawful trade union activities in the capacity of Office Secretary, and District Secretary respectively of HBL Employees Union. Respondent No.2 is shown instrumental in the transfers in question. The submission of the learned counsel is not tenable. There is nothing in support of the assertion. It may be stated here with the advantage that the petitioner No. 1 is Office Secretary in the union.
According to the constitution of the union, he is entrusted with the duties to look after the record and office affairs of the union. The union constitution does not confer responsibility on Office Secretary to solve problems of the workers and discuss with them union matters.
7. The assumption of jurisdiction by the Commission is dependant upon a prima facie case of unfair labour practice but the petitioner, as discussed earlier, have not been able to substantiate the allegations. In the circumstances, I, find that the Commission cannot exercise its powers available to it under section 22-A (8)(g) of the IRO, 1969. The jurisdiction of the Commission, as held time and again, is restricted to the cases falling under the scope of section 15 of the Ordinance and nothing beyond that. It implies that in cases of victimization for any reason other than the trade union activities this Commission will have no jurisdiction.
8. Finding no substance in this petition, I dismiss the same and recall the stay order without proceeding to record evidence.