' By the present judgment, I propose to dispose of Muhammad Sadiq's two appeals, as also two contempt petitions, the facts and legal propositions involved being all inter-linked, if not exactly identical. By a judgment announced on 18-9-1995, by Malik Mushtaq Ahmad, Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.8, Bahawalpur, the two grievance petitions filed by Muhammad Sadiq, under section 25-A of .the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 were dismissed by a single judgment. Two contempt petitions, one after the other, were also submitted by Muhammad Sadiq on 14-3-1992 and 3-2-1998. In the previous contempt petition Brig. (Retd.) Javaid Majeed was the only respondent, whereas in the subsequent petition Lt.-Col. Arshad Naseer Virk and Mr. Aziz-ur- Rehman Mian were arrayed as the alleged condemners. These contempt matters shall also be dealt with, in the course of this judgment.
2. Muhammad Sadiq had been appointed as Qasid on 18-3-1983, by the Resident Manager, Fauji Fertilizer Company, Goth Machhi, Sadiqabad, District Rahim Yar Khan, and his services were terminated on 27-2-1986, by a verbal order, as was alleged in the grievance petition, which was later accepted by the learned Labour Court at Bahawalpur on 29-10-1987. He was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back benefits. The employer met failure in the Labour Appellate Tribunal, as also in the Lahore High Court and the Supreme Court of Pakistan. He reported for duty, but he was asked to join duty at Peshawar, by being told that he stood transferred there, vide order dated 24-3-1992. This order was again on 17-6-1992 assailed in the Labour Court, as according to the employee it was invalid and inoperative. He also made a prayer that he be allowed to assume duty at his previous post, that of Qasid, in the Technical Training Centre, Goth Machhi. Another grievance petition, in the same Court, was filed on 27-8-1992. The grievance-petitioner laid claim to wages for the period, April, May, and June 1992, which wages, according to the employee, had wrongfully been withheld by the establishment, in violation of provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 196& A number of grounds were invoked by the employee, in assailing his transfer order; and the learned lower Court struck seven issues for determination, in the manner of a Civil Court.
The same need not be reproduced here, and may be seen at page No.4 of the lengthy judgment, delivered by the learned Labour Court (stretching over as many as 17 pages).
3.In obedience to the transfer order dated 24-3-1992, Muhammad Sadiq is said to have not reported for duty in the Marketing Division of F.F.C., Peshawar. He had been addressing, as he claims, applications to the 'Authorities' (this he did on 30-3-1992 and 16-6-1992). The learned Court below has held that the grievance petitions filed on 17-6-1992 and 27-8-1992 could well be treated to have been submitted before the expiry of the limitation period. This finding has not seriously been contested' by the employer.
4. The learned Labour Court has observed that the Head Office of the F.F.C., situate at Rawalpindi (Harley Street), was the overall Incharge and, as such, was eligible to pass any proper order for advancement of business interests of the establishment. Exh. R-4 was the order issued on 24-3- 1992, by which Muhammad Sadiq was transferred 'from Goth Machhi to F.F.C. Marketing Division, Peshawar, and he was directed to report to the Regional Manager there. In pursuance of this order, the Resident Manager, Goth Machhi F.F.C. made a direction on the same day (Exh. P-3) convening to the official, the requisite information. Exh. P-3 thus was an order in the nature of official communication or a directive. On the following day, i:e. 25-3-1992, another order Exh. P-4 was passed. It was to the effect that as the official had refused to receive the orders, the same were being dispatched to him by registered post at his residential address, for compliance. Actually an order (Exh. R-3) on a previous date (5-2-1992) had been made by the Resident Manager, F.F.C.
Goth Machhi, in compliance of the Labour Court's order dated 29-10-1987. Muhammad Sadiq had been declared to be a regular and permanent employee of F.F.C. and his reinstatement with back benefits had been ordered. A letter to him on 4-2-1992 is stated to have been sent, making him aware of this decision. It was further stated that as there was no place to absorb Muhammad Sadiq, his services had been placed at the disposal of the Head Office, for his transfer to any other place, where his services could be utilised. Till such time the requisite adjustment could be made, he was instructed to be taken on duty at Plant site, Goth Machhi, and enabled to function there. He, however, declined to obey the orders and assailed the same, as being unlawful, by approaching the Labour Court at Bahawalpur, as already said. The learned labor Court dismissed his grievance petition and directed him to report for duty at Peshawar within ten days.
5. The earlier orders, passed in February and March, 1992, by the 'Authorities', it appears, were not complied with by the official, who unsuccessfully impugned the validity and cooperativeness of the same, as his grievance petition on 18-9-1995 was dismissed by the learned Labor Court.
' His. plea was that he had dragged the 'Authorities' into a long drawn litigation, right up to the august apex Court of the country, and the 'Authorities' had no way out but to take him back on the rolls of the establishment. They had got grossly embittered and revengeful against him and had passed the transfer order not in routine. It has, however, to be borne in mind that posting of a subordinate at a particular place is the prerogative of the employer and transfer of an official is part and parcel of conditions of A his service, and he cannot possibly resist such a move, and flout an order of his shifting to a place not of his choice. Certain orders were passed by the 'Authorities' in the nature of inter-departmental communication, as has rightly been observed by the learned lower Court, but it could not be pleaded by the appellant employee that unconcerned and unauthorized officers had made the orders and he was not under as obligation to obey the same.
Of course, it could be urged by him that being a low-paid employee, he ought not to have been shifted to such a far-off place, as he was not in position to bear the heavy expenses, involved in shifting of his family from Goth Machhi to Peshawar. He could have made a pathetic or passionate plea in that behalf, to the 'Authorities', who might have taken a lenient or sympathetic view, and thought in terms of accommodating him at a place near his home town or sending him back to his original place of posting; but, rigidly and technically speaking, the order could not be termed as the one not sustainable in law and not executable in terms of service discipline. It could also not be described as arbitrary or mala fide, although as a matter of fact the 'Authorities' might well have got biased or inimical against him, by reason of the litigation that had been going on between him and the establishment over a number of years. Transfer of an official could be termed as an unfair labour practice, so long as elections of a union of laborers are in the offing, or conciliation proceedings are pending before an Arbitrator or a Labour Forum, as envisaged by section 47, read with section 15(1)(d) and 8-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. A normal transfer cannot be treated as infringement of any vested right of an official or workman, available to him under any law, award or settlement, which he may enforce by having recourse to a Labour Forum. Even though, therefore, the employee has urged that his transfer to Peshawar was in the nature of avenging the litigation, in which he had dragged the 'Authorities', he could not possibly be afforded any protection or safeguard, in that behalf, and was bound to obey the orders and move from one place to another for performance of his duty. The company had tendered documents, Exhs.R-24 to 28, showing that menial members of the staff had been transferred from Karachi to Lahore and other stations, and the 'Authorities', as such, were under no legal obligations to retain Muhammad Sadiq at Goth Machhi, for all times to come. He had been there for a long period, and was liable to transfer to any other station in routine.
6. The learned Labour Court, like a Civil Court, cannot render a verdict to the effect that shifting of a workman from one station to another is an act tainted with mala fides, liable to nullification, unless the affected person is able to establish that any guaranteed right, available to him under law has been infringed. The official, in this case, did serve at Peshawar, but for only a few months, and then left the place on the pretext of his indisposition, genuine or pretended. If he was not willing to perform duty at Peshawar, his services were indeed liable to termination, so that he was not even entitled to get the wages or the emoluments, for the period for which he had not practically rendered any service to the establishment. Actually, the learned counsel for the respondent, in the course of his arguments, has undertaken that the pay for the period of three months, April to June, 1992, will immediately be released, if the appellant is prepared to give an undertaking that he will not lay claim to any other 'unconcerned' emoluments. The conduct of the official has unfortunately been that open an insolent, arrogant and indiscipline subordinate; and I wonder, if he can ever develop a temperament to do duty, in right earnest, at a place not of his choice. This is particularly so, because he has been crowned with success, in the previous round of litigation, right up to the highest Court of the country.
7. I have really not been able to find fault with the judgment delivered by the learned lower Court.
The two appeals, being bereft of any merit, are hereby dismissed, with of course no order as to costs, keeping in view the fact that the appellant probably is a poor person. The two contempt petition, thus, also would turn out to be nugatory and are hereby dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.