' This is a petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of I.R.O., 1969 wherein the petitioners, who are six in number, contends that they are employed as Divisional Accountants in the establishment of Capital Development Authority, Islamabad and are also members of the C.BA. Employees'
Federation, which is a non C.BA. Of the establishment. The establishment/management, at the instance of the C.BA. Employees' Union, which is the C.BA. Of the establishment, committed unfair labour practice with the petitioners by way of transfers etc. It was contended that the same constitutes victimization under section 15 of the I.R.O., 1969. Under such circumstances the petition was registered and interim injunction order was granted in favour of the petitioners on 6-6-1995.
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 the learned counsel Mr. M.K. Khan, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. S. Rais Ahmad Jafri, Advocate for the respondents and have also considered the documents and written arguments filed on record.
4. It is necessary to observe at the very outset that during the pendency. Of this petition one of the petitioners namely Muhammad Nazir Qureshi filed an application for withdrawal of his case which was allowed on 13-6-1995. Similarly, two other petitioners i,e, Allah Ditta and Nasir Qarban also filed an application seeking permission to withdraw their cases. This application was also allowed on 2- 7-1995. Presently only three petitioners were left in the field who were aggrieved by their transfer order. In respect of these three petitioners, the order dated 3-9-1995. No, CDA-3(3)(15)- Pers/88/Sec.II/7320 is evident to the fact, that these three petitioners have also been promoted to officer grade/officer cadre i,e, BPS-16 and therefore, have ceased to be workers or workmen within the meaning of section 2 of I.R.O., 1969. This fact is also admitted by the petitioners that they have been promoted by way of order dated 3-9-1995 to BPS-16 where the nature of their duties is totally of supervisory nature and therefore, they ceased to qualify the definition of worker or workman stipulated in the provisions of subsection (xxviii) of section 2 of I.R.O., 1969.
5. Even otherwise, there is nothing on record to establish some trade union activities on the part of the petitioners to show that they have been victimized by the respondents by way of transfer order dated 1-6-1995. In absence of such positive trade .Union activities this Commission would not interfere in the normal functions of an establishment as it is a well-settled principle of law that the transfer of an employee is one of the fundamental rights of the employer and the same cannot be snatched away on mere allegations until and unless it is established on record that the same constitutes an act of unfair labour practice within the meaning of section 15 (d) of the I.R.O., 1969, which otherwise is a necessary element for the lawful exercise of jurisdiction of this Commission under the provisions of section 22-A (8) (g) of the I.R.O., 1969. This view to get support from the cases-law reported in PLD 1988 SC 53, 1994 PLC 284, 1989 PLC 439 and PLC 1994 page 140.
6. As a result of the above discussions the petition is dismissed, without any orders as to costs.