By way of the present revision petition has been called in question the validity and soundness of an order dated 26-6-1994, passed by the Punjab Labour Court No: 2, Lahore, suspending operation of an order dated 14-6-1994, transferring the respondent, an official of WASA, LDA, from one place to another.
2. Muhammad Hanif Ijaz is a Sub-Engineer, posted in the WASA's office, situate in Township, Lahore.
Vide order dated 14-6-1994, he transferred from Township to Leak detection Cell, and he challenged the order, by filing a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, in the Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore, late Presiding Officer of which Court issued a stay order, on entertaining the grievance petition, on 26-6-1994, suspending the aforesaid order of transfer. Unfortunately he was in the habit of granting stay order, in every case, in routine, and in a truly mechanical and indulgent way. I am indeed surprised to find, that in the instant case, he had written a few lines before conceding to the grievance-petitioner ad-interim relief asked for.
It is, however, to be pointed out that it was only a transfer order and the competent authority was well within his rights to shift subordinate from one place to another, filling a similar or equivalent vacancy, in the exigencies of service and in the public interest. It was averred by the petitioner before the Labour Court that he had been made a rolling stone and had been transferred thrice during April, 1994, and this was his fourth transfer ordered in June, 1994, and positive mala fides, on the part of his superior, the Deputy Managing Director, WASA attended the impugned at. It is, however, not unlikely that the petitioner in the Labour Court respondent before this Tribunal, might have himself managed his shifting from one place to another, in search of a lucrative job, and when he got it but was going to lose the post, on his shifting ordered on 14-6-1994, he could not put up with the situation and decided to assail the at of his Officer by approaching the Labour Court, and pleading that he was a workman, entitled to invoke the forum of the Labour Court.
3. It is so well known that a civil servant or an official of an autonomous body has not a vested right to remain posted at a particular place or against a specific assignment; he is liable to transfer.
Anywhere within the establishment. Power of the Competent Authority to transfer a subordinate can in no manner be curtailed. It has been so held in number of authorities. 1992 SCM R 1843, Nasir Hussain v. Chief Secretary, N.W.F.P. May be quoted as one of which.
4. One would indeed be amused to find the official, in this case, urging that he would be subjected to immense inconvenience, as also irreparable loss, in the event of his shifting from the Township Office, although all the places, where, one after the other, he was sent were situate within the metropolitan limits; but even if he was actually to undergo some sort of hardship, in moving from one place to another, he could not legally complain of the same and agitate against it by approaching a Court of law. He had no case for issuance of stay order.
5. I find, on record, a letter addressed by the Director Administration, WASA, LDA, Lahore, recently written to the Additional Legal Advisor of the local body, making grievance of the fact that subsistence of the stay order granted by the Labour Court in favour of Muhammad Hanif Ijaz over a period of about to years last has almost completely paralysed the working and discipline of the Township Division, and employees, as also members of the public and the labour class have constantly been complaining of the behaviour of the Sub-Engineer. A number of complaints, embodying gross and sinister allegations against the conduct of the official have been appended with the aforesaid letter. Without, however, being influenced by the same, I would plainly observe that the Labour Court had thoughtlessly issued the stay order, although the official had absolutely no entitlement to it and the same has remained intact over an abnormally long period of to years, and amounts to interfering with the smooth and normal working of an important wing of a corporate body. The earlier the order is vacated, the better it would be for the ends of justice.
6. The impugned order was rendered about to years ago on 26-6-1994. As per office report, the revision petition is barred by nearly 600 days. It is, however, to be borne in mind that, as already said, the order has been holding the field throughout, and by reason of an enduring wrong being caused to all those concerned, there was correspondingly a continuing cause of action, and the order could be assailed, through a permissible mode, at any the and I would not treat the revision petition to be barred by the law of limitation. Even, otherwise, such a wrongful and unsound, invalid and void order cannot be permitted to operate any more and I would vacate it, with the promptness and eagerness, so eminently and so vividly warranted by the situation. The revision petition is accepted and the stay order dated 26-6-1994 is vacated.