Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Syed MUSAWWAR HUSSAIN SHAH VS Respondent: DIRECTOR AGRICULTURAL MECHANISATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE, MULTAN
1988 P L C 578
1988 P L C 578
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal
Syed MUSAWWAR HUSSAIN SHAH
Versus
DIRECTOR AGRICULTURAL MECHANISATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE, MULTAN
Revision No. MN‑310 of 1986, decided on 26th May, 1986.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑
‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3‑a)‑‑Transfer‑‑Ad interim stay order‑‑Office‑bearer of Trade Union challenging transfer on grounds of victimisation‑ Transfer not involving change of station‑‑Neither any inconvenience nor any irreparable injury likely to be suffered‑‑Application for ad interim stay, held, was rightly rejected‑‑Revision against order of Labour Court was dismissed by Appellate Tribunal in circumstances.
Petitioner in person.
Date of hearing: 21st May, 1986.
JUDGMENT
The order dated 14‑5‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan is reported to be wrong.
2. The petitioner was store‑keeper workshop. He has been transferred to Stationery Stores. He has challenged the order of his transfer in a grievance petition brought under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. His application for ad interim stay has been rejected by the impugned order. The case of the petitioner is that as he is President of Labour Union, therefore, he has been victimized. Since the petitioner is at the same station, he can perform his duties as President of Union, so it cannot be said that due to union activities he has been mala fide transferred. As he has not been transferred to any out station, so no question of inconvenience arises. It is not the case of the petitioner that in some other scale he has been transferred. If ultimately his grievance petition succeeds, he can be sent back to the workshop stores, so he is not likely to suffer any irreparable injury. It has been argued that he has suffered in seniority. There is nothing on the record in support of this apprehension of the petitioner. So, hips petition has been rightly dismissed.
3. As a result, the revision fails and is thus dismissed in limine.
A. E./116/Lb.P Petition dismissed,