' The three petitioners named above have filed this petition under saection 22-A(8)(g) of the IRO, 1969 alleging therein that petitioner Islatnuddin is the Vice President, Munawar Iqbal Kiany, is Joint Secretary and Abdul Razzak is Propaganda Secretary of Sherton Hotel National Employees Union which is also CBA. The petitioners have alleged in their petition that an election in the establishment of respondents was held in 1996 in which Rahmatuddin was elected as General Secretary. The change of office-bearer was submitted to the Registrar of Trade Unions but he did not pass any order on the change hence the union approached the Labour Court No,5 which ordered the Registrar to accept the change of the office-hearers vide order dated 9-2-1999. That order of Labour Court No,5 was challenged before the Labour Appellate Tribunal but it was later on withdrawn. After withdrawal of the Revision from the Labour Appellate Tribunal Rahmatuddin held fresh elections of the union. After the fresh elections the respondents became annoyed with the office-bearers and they called each worker one by one and threatened them to give up their trade union activities otherwise they will be dismissed or terminated from service. The petitioners have alleged that their own man Faqir Muhammad also threatened the petitioners with dire consequence. The petitioners have alleged that they wrote many letters to the General Manager about the threats but nothing was done by them. Feeling compelled the petitioners served charter of demands on the respondents. The Registrar called the respondents but they did not attend and filed the objection and the negotiations were not held. The petitioners have alleged that as an act of unfair labour practice, the respondents -terminated the service of their General Secretary .Rehmatuddin and Patris Sharif who have filed their cases before the Labour Court No,5 for reinstatement of their service where they are still pending. They have further alleged that the respondents as an act of unfair labour practice transferred Islamuddin, Vice President of the union from Stewarding to Staff Cafeteria and then served him and Munawar Iqbal with false charge- sheet of inserting pamphlet in the employees lockers. The petitioners have prayed that respondents may be restrained from dismissing, terminating or transferring the petitioners as an act of unfair labour practice.
2. The respondents filed written comments in which they denied various allegations of the petitioners. They stated that the petitioners are not the members of the union as the change of office-bearers submitted by them was not accepted by the Registrar but was rejected vide order of the Registrar of Trade Unions dated 8-2-2002. The respondents have stated that to transfer an employee or to initiate disciplinary proceedings against an employee is the prerogative and right of the employer and no exception could be taken to it nor it could be challenged before this Commission. They further stated that charter of demands submitted by the petitioners was illegal as they were not office-bearers of the union and therefore, the Registrar did not hold negotiations on the charter of demands of the petitioners. Besides factual aspects the respondents took legal plea that the petition is not maintainable being devoid of any instance of unfair labour practice, the NIRC has no jurisdiction to interfere into the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the respondents, that joint petition by three petitioners is not maintainable and some other legal objections.
3. I have heard Mr. Abdul Zubaid, Labour Representative of the petitioners and Mr. Faisal Mahmood Ghani, learned Advocate for the respondents. I have gone through the R&P and the documents filed alongwith it.
4. The perusal of the petition would reveal that it has not been drafted properly, with due care and caution but it has been prepared in haphazard manner as many of the documents attached with the petition have not been discussed in the petition. No relevance of these documents have been justified in the main petition. I have failed to understand as to why these documents were attached to the petition when these were not discussed in the petition nor their relevance was discussed in the petition. This was a careless attitude of the Labour Representative of the petitioners in drafting the petition.
5. The labour Representative of the petitioners argued that the petitioners are being victimized by the respondents on account of their trade union activities and they are intending to terminate them from service as an act of unfair labour practice. This argument is not sustained from the averments contained in the petition. No instance of any unfair labour practice has been given by the petitioners. Mere termination of service of some employees who had already filed grievance petition before the Labour Court will not make the acts of respondents the acts of unfair labour practice. The holding of inquiry into the misconduct of employee is right of the employer and if at inquiry same delinquent is found guilty it is right of the employer to award him punishment. In such circumstances any employee is proceeded with in inquiry and in consequence of inquiry report if their services are terminated the acts of respondents cannot be termed to be the acts of unfair labour practice, particularly when those employees resorted to legal course by filing grievance petition and not filing complaint under section 53 of the IRO, 1969.
6. The Labour Representative of the petitioners argued that petitioners Islamuddin and Munwar Iqbal have been issued false charge-sheets of inserting pamphlet into the employees lockers. It is beyond the scope and jurisdiction of this Commission to determine if the charge-sheet given to an employee is right. It is within the domain of employer to determine if the charge is true or false. This Court can neither sit as an Inquiry Officer nor as an Appellate Authority of the inquiry officer. This point, therefore, cannot be raised before this Commission.
7. The Labour Representative of the petitioners then argued that the petitioner Islamuddin has been transferred from Stewarding to Staff afeteria as an act of punishment. I do not feel that transfer of an employee from one section to another section in the same Hotel premises will amount to, punishment if it is not tainted with an act of unfair labour practice. No employee has relied right to remain in job at some place for indefinite period. It is right and prerogative of the employer to transfer him from one post to another and it is the right of the employer to determine as to which employee's service could be better utilized at which place. The petitioner has failed to spell out the irregularities of his transfer from one place to another and it has not been established as to how the transfer would amount to punishment to the petitioner. In these circumstances the transfer of an employee in normal course does not carry any element of unfair labour practice. The Labour Representative of the petitioners then argued that they had served charter of demands upon the respondents but they did not attend the negotiations proceedings before the Registrar of Trade Unions, hence they have committed unfair labour practice.
8. As against this learned advocate for the respondents argued that the petitioners were not office- bearers of any union therefore, they had no right to submit the charter of demands. He argued that when this fact was brought to the notice of Registrar he accepted the version of the management and did not hold negotiations on the charter of demands. He also argued that change submitted by the petitioners was rejected by the Registrar. Such letter of the Registrar has been placed on record. Now it is for the petitioners either to challenge the order of Registrar to eject the change or to submit a fresh change to the Registrar of the Trade Unions. For the present the union has no right to file the petition for the redressal of an employee. In this matter the union is not involved but it is individual grievance of the petitioners who have filed this petition.
II. The learned Advocate for the respondents argued that transfer order of Islamuddin has already been effected, hence this petition would not he maintainable and the Commission cannot issue any injunction for the act which has already been done. This fact was not denied by the petitioners.
In such circumstances since order of transfer of Islamuddin has taken place this Commission cannot issue any injunction nor can grant him any relief.
9. Since I have held above that the petition of the petitioners is not maintainable on factual as well as on legal aspect hence I did not go further into the details of other illegalities pointed out by the learned Advocate for the respondents.
' In view of above discussed facts, circumstances and law, I have come to the conclusion that the petition of the petitioners is 'not maintainable and therefore, not only stay application but the main petition also is dismissed.
' Announced in open Court.
' Given under my hand and seal of the Commission, this 3rd day of June, 2002.