' By this single order, I propose to dispose of eight Transfer Applications Nos. 316/95 to 322/95 and 358/95, having been moved by M/s. Hayee Sons Sugar Mills Ltd., Khanpur.
2. The contesting respondents have all filed their replies, and the learned Presiding Officer of the Court concerned has also submitted his comments, which have carefully been gone through. The ground for transfer of the cases is that the Presiding Officer has bias in his mind against the Mill proprietorship/management, who have been branded as fraudulent people, liable to be hanged.
Such embarrassing strictures have made the Mill management believe that they would not get justice from the Court concerned, Presiding Officer of which has always decided miscellaneous applications moved in the. Course of the proceedings against the employer and in favour of the employees.
3. The insinuations directed against the Presiding Officer of the Court have all been repudiated by him and the employees have also given a lie to the same. It has been averred by them that the employer has been making frivolous applications, in order only to delay the proceedings, and such applications have met the fate they deserved. It has also been said that the employees have been out of job over a pretty long period, having been facing untold hardships and avowed object of the employer is to demoralize them to an extreme degree.
4. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the employer that bias in the mind of a Judge need not be proved, by quoting concrete instances, and the same may be inferred or gathered from the conduct of the Judge. Reliance has been placed on 1990 PCr. L J 205 (Lahore) and 1994 PLC 1761 (Lahore) -- the latter order having been rendered by me as Judge of the High Court, towards end of the year 1993. True, it may not be possible for the aggrieved party to establish alleged bias or prejudice on the part of the Presiding Officer of a Court, but the same has after all to be adjudged, in keeping with known and accepted norms, concepts and principles of justice. Merely because a party is not satisfied with the attitude of a Judge would not be enough to raise a presumption against his independence or integrity, for if such an assumption, such a practice, is approved, there would hardly be any Presiding Officer of Court, who would remain safe from such scolding such alignment to ensure that the Judge performs his functions and administers justice with peace of mind, in an atmosphere free of accusative utterances, it is of utmost importance that he is protected from embarrassing pronouncements, unguarded expressions and unfounded charges directed against his independence and integrity. Lot many interim orders may have to be rendered in the course of proceedings of a particular case, and it is not possible for the Judge to appease both sides, in regard to soundness of the actions taken and orders passed by him. One of the two sides would certainly find himself to be aggrieved over the developments taking place in the course of hearing of a case. If one starts making accusations, which have no susceptible or perceptible basis, it will become very difficult for the Judge to proceed with the case and take it to its logical end. Superior Courts, as such, must be mindful of such 'delicacies', while dealing with requests made for transfer of cases from one Court to another.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has cited in support of his view-point, 1976 PLC 573 (Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab) and 1978 PLC 432 (Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi), in which cases it has been pronounced that a case should not readily be withdrawn from a Court, on the basis of frivolous or false allegations directed against the Judge. Presiding Officers of Courts, it cannot be denied, generally themselves remain very cautious and discreet in their conduct. They should better avoid indulging in uncalled for utterances and irresponsible remarks, while hearing cases, lest a party to the litigation takes it into his mind that he happens to be the 'hated' person and the other party forms the impression that he is the favourite of the Judge and the balance of justice will tilt in his favour in all likelihood.
6. I cannot believe it, for a moment, that the Presiding Officer of the Court concerned would have described the employers as cheats or wrong-doers of the worst degree, liable to be put on the gallows. Learned counsel for the petitioner (employer) has not placed before this Tribunal single order, having been passed by the Court below earlier during the proceedings, in manifestation of grudge, hatred or bias on the part of the Court against the employer. Had the Court taken any wrong decision, it was open to the aggrieved party to have agitated the matter in the higher forum.
No such instance has been cited. How can then it be alleged even that the Presiding Officer has got unduly prejudiced and got indeed poisoned against the employer, for no fault on the part of the latter. In the beginning, without much of application of mind, I was contemplating withdrawal of the cases from the Punjab Labour Court No, 8, at Bahawalpur, and their entrustment to the Punjab Labour Court at Multan. This course, however, would plainly have been injurious or prejudicial to the cause of the employer, the reason being that Sardar Ghulam Abbas Khan, Presiding Officer of Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan is known for his pro-workman posture and has been found to have seldom decided a case in favour of an employer, with due regard for statutory provisions and case-law. Malik Mushtaq Ahmad, Presiding Officer of Punjab Labour Court No, 8 (at Bahawalpur), on the contrary, has the confirmed reputation for his judicial maturity as also sublimity and honesty; and I am confident that he will not get prejudiced, in the least, against the employer, because of the instant development, viz. The employer having expressed distrust in him, and will proceed with the cases and dispose of the same in a wholly impartial manner, exhibiting judicial restraint, avoiding mental imbalance, and maintaining absolute impartiality, discreetness and decency in conduct.
7. I have not at all found myself inclined to concede to the prayer made by the petitioner (employer) for withdrawal of the cases from the Punjab Labour Court No, 8 (at Bahawalpur), particularly because if those are entrusted to the Labour Court at Lahore or Faisalabad, the nearest stations (barring Multan), vis-a-vis Bahawalpur, the poor employees would be put to immense inconvenience, agony and hardship, in terms of physical discomfort, mental anguish and financial drain, since they will have to travel to those distant places, engage advocates afresh, else take their counsel from Bahawalpur to Faisalabad/Lahore, on every date of hearing; and this exercise will certainly not constitute an act of good administration of justice. The transfer applications are, therefore, rejected.
Application rejected.