' This is a petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 wherein, the petitioner contends that he has been recently elected as the Assistant General Secretary, of the Utility Stores Corporation Employees Union, at Poly Bag Project and the result of the elections has been approved by the Registrar Trade Union, Islamabad on 6th December, 1994. It was contended that the respondents/Management is annoyed with the lawful trade union activities of the petitioner and due to this reason the petitioner was transferred from Poly Bag Project, Islamabad vide letter dated 1-12-1994. Under such circumstances the petition was admitted and interim injunction order dated 8-12-1994 was issued in favour of the petitioner.
2. The respondent strongly contested the petition on merits as well as certain preliminary legal objections as to the maintainability of the petition were also raised.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties upon the application for stay under Regulation 32(2) of the N.I.R.C. (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973 and have also considered the documents filed on record. The respondent has not denied the fact that the petitioner, being the employee of the respondent, was also a member of the Utility Stores Corporation Employees Union and was performing his trade union activities and was elected as Assistant General Secretary of the said union for the Poly Bag Project but it was stated that the said elections were approved on 6-12-1994 while the petitioner was already transferred on 1-12-1994, therefore, the contention of the petitioner regarding annoyance of the respondents due to the lawful trade union activities of the petitioner are baseless. The letter filed on record as Annex. P/1 dated 6-12-1994 issued by the Assistant Director Labour Welfare/Registrar Trade Unions Islamabad affirm the contention of the Counsel for the respondent that the elections were approved on 6-12-1994 but it also indicates that the elections of the union were held on 30-11-1994, therefore, the apprehension/contention of the petitioner that his transfer is an act of victimization cannot be ruled out. I have also considered the contents of two different applications filed by the petitioner himself before the management containing request for his transfer from the Poly Project to Rawalpindi but the same hardly affects the merits of the case, in hand, wherein this Commission has to see as to whether any act of unfair labour practice has been committed or is likely to be committed within the premises under the provisions of section "22-A (8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969" and Regulation 32(2) of the N.I.R.C. (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973. The transfer of the employees is although one of the fundamental/prerogative right of the management for its routine function but it also constitute an act of unfair labour practice within the meaning of section 15(d) of the I.R.O., 1969. The case-law referred by the learned counsel for the respondents reported in 1986 PLC page-365 and page-568 and also reported in 1987 PLC page 358 would not be relevant and also could not be applied at this stage as the Commission of unfair labour practice is a mixed question of law and facts can only be resolved after receiving the evidence of the parties.
4. As a result of the above discussion I am inclined to confirm the interim injunction order dated 8- 12-1994 in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to produce evidence in support of his case. The case is adjourned for 4-7-1995 for petitioner' evidence.