' Learned Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan, on 9-5-1996, dismissed an application submitted for issuance of temporary injunction, along with his main grievance petition, by Zahoor Hussain Shah, who had challenged the order of his transfer from Multan to Lahore, by invoking the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. This revision petition is directed against the aforesaid order dated 9-5-1996 of the Labour Court.
2. I am astonished to find that the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, who has generally a very soft corner for the Labour class, has not found it possible to concede to the petitioner the requisite relief on interim scale even. But I must say that he has given sound reasons for rejection of the prayer. Zahoor Shah has been unlucky in having met failure on having recourse to the N.I.R.C. As well. The learned Member of the N.I.R.C. Had, on 11-12-1994, dismissed the petition made for grant of injunction, recalling the stay order initially issued on 1-7-1991. It appears that the stay order had remained intact for about 3-1/2 years.
3. Zahoor Shah is a Security Guard, employed by the Punjab Road Transport Corporation, having his posting at the Inter-City Depot, Multan. On 15-6-1991, his shifting to the Green Town G.T.S. Depot (Urban), Lahore was ordered. He has, however, managed to perpetuate his stay at Multan, over the years, and pleads that he is not liable to transfer from Multan to any other place. The learned lower Court has enumerated his contentions, in para. No, 2 of the impugned order. According to the petitioner, the policy decision of the Government of the Punjab does not permit transfer of a low- paid employee, and again, transfer order in his case has been passed by the Director Admn., although the District Manager, G.T.S. Was the competent Officer. As he has actively been participating in the trade union activities, as a member of the P.R.T. Azad Mazdoor (PIAM) Union, the management, as also the rival trade union, Muslim Labour Union, have turned hostile towards him.
It is also submitted that the Transport Minister had imposed a ban on transfers and the same is in force still.
4. Learned Member of the N.I.R.C. Has dealt with the matter almost comprehensively and spurned the insinuation of the petitioner that he has been subjected to victimization or vindictiveness by the Authorities of the Corporation, and it has been observed that nothing has been brought on record in support of the assertion that the petitioner has been picked up for shifting to a far-off place by way of vengeance.
5. I am afraid, it would be difficult for the petitioner to urge and establish that his transfer has not been ordered in public interest, or in the exigencies of service. An order of transfer, as has been pronounced by the worthy Member of the N.I.R.C., cannot successfully be challenged, unless mala fides are shown and proved as a fact. Transfer of a Government servant A may be ordered at any time and at any place for good management of an organisation and for smooth running of a Government Department. Transfer cannot be avoided in the name of or on the pretext of participation in trade union activities. No case of unfair labour practice was made out, in the estimation of the learned Member of the N.I.R.C., which refused to interfere with the order of transfer and vacated the stay order that had earlier been issued in favour of the employee.
6. It is to be pointed out that the ban on transfers, appointments, promotions, etc., of employees of P.R.T.C. Could not possibly be perpetual and could not even stretch over a long period, as internal working of the Corporation would adversely have been effected, had there been no appointments, promotions and transfers over an indefinite period. Well, if such a ban, as is alluded to by the employee is still in vogue, he could very well approach the Minister concerned and get his transfer cancelled, for the Authorities could not dare defy a directive of the nature in question.
7. I have sympathy for the petitioner, who says that he has two wives and 14 children and cannot possibly make his both ends meet, with the meagre pay, he is drawing, and especially at an expensive place like Lahore, where he will have to get a house at exorbitant rate of rent. Such compassion apart, I am afraid, an aggrieved person cannot urge that he has a vested right to remain at a particular place and is not liable to transfer anywhere else. Manifestly, he cannot enforce it as an inalienable or justiciable right through agency of the Court of law.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents has stated at the Bar that the petitioner has finally been relieved at Multan on 11-3-1996, but he has not cared to join his duty at the new place of posting, and since 11-3-1996 he has been absent from duty, and is intended to be proceeded against in a departmental inquiry. The authorities are very bitter about him, as he has not permitted implementation of the transfer order past several years ago on 15-6-1991. Golden Hand Shake Scheme is going to be enforced and the organization may be wound up in near future. Those, who are not feeling comfortable in the set-up, and wish to stage exit for any reason, would be at liberty to avail of the benefits provided under the Scheme.
9. This Court had suggested to the learned counsel for the respondents on the previous date, i,e, on 16-6-1996, that he should prevail upon the Authorities to permit the petitioner to continue serving at Multan, keeping in view his limited emoluments and the ever rising cost of living. In reply to that suggestion, the learned counsel has made submission, which is to the effect that Zahoor Shah having not moved to his new place of posting, in spite of having been relieved, was entitled to no indulgence, although the Authorities could well think in terms of accommodating him, if he had joined duty at Lahore, started working there, and then made a representation for his transfer back to Multan.
10. In view of what has been observed by the learned Member of the N.I.R.C. And by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, and in the light of the discussion made above, it appears that the petitioner has hardly any case for interference by this Court with the impugned order announced by the Labour Court on 9-5-1996. The order is upheld, and the revision petition is dismissed, although with no order as to costs.