' This is a petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 filed by the petitioner Imrar Khan, contending therein that he is an employee of establishment of WAPDA as Loory Cleaner at Islamabad. Being an employee, he is also a Member of Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Paigham)
Union, which is a registered trade union with the National Industrial Relations Commission. It was contended that the respondents are unlawfully recognizing the WAPDA Hydro Electric Central Labour Union as C.B.A. It was further contended that being annoyed with the lawful trade union activities of the petitioner, the respondents have committed (sic) under such circumstances the petition was registered and the transfer order dated 23-2-1995 was suspended.
2. The petition was strongly contested by the respondents by way of filing - of written statement and rejoinder to the stay application, wherein certain preliminary legal objections, as to the maintainability of the petition were also raised.
3. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and have also considered the available documents with their help.
4. It is although an admitted position that the petitioner is an employee of the establishment of WAPDA as Loory Cleaner and being an employee is also a member of Pakistan (Paigham) Union but nothing was filed on record by the petitioner to establish some trade union activities on his part, in order to support his contention that he was victimised due to the performance of such trade union activities, except that the petitioner is a simple member of a registered trade union.
Besides, by way of such transfer, neither the petitioner was degraded nor he is likely to suffer any deduction in his salary. The change of nature of duty i,e, from Loory Cleaner to Oil Cleaner do not constitute an occasion for the interference of this Commission while exercising its limited jurisdiction under the provision of section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969. Besides, it also does not constitute an act of unfair labour practice within the meaning of section 15 of the IRO, 1969. The transfer of the petitioner is not only one of the condition of appointment of the petitioner but also is a well-settled and basic right of the employer and it can always be exercised by the employer in the interest of the establishment of its day to day affairs. This right cannot be snatched away until and unless the same constitute unfair labour practice, within the meaning of section 15(d) of the I.R.O., 1969, which is lacking in the present petition. This view gets support from the case-law i,e, Muhammad Nawaz v. General Manager, WAPDA etc. Reported in 1994 PLC page 140, Mehr Shah v.
G.M., G.T.S., Peshawar etc. Reported in 1994 PLC page 294 and Mr. Muhammad Afzal v. Secretary Education, Lahore etc. Reported in 1992 PLC (C.S.) 117 also reported in PLD 1988 SC page 53, 1989 PLC page 439.
5. Consequently, I see no merit in the petition; therefore, the same is dismissed without any orders as to costs.