Law: Industrial Relations Ordinance, (XXIII of 1969)

Section: 34

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) -S. 34 [as amended by Industrial Relations (Amendment) Ordinance (XIX of 1970)]-Right guaranteed or secured-Road Transport Corporation employee-No - rule entitling to be stationed at one place only transfer from one city to an other-Lawful and not challengeable Application under S. 34 seeking cancellation of transfer order dis missed. DECISION MAHMOOD AHMAD SOOFI (CHAIRMAN).--This application has been instituted by the petitioner Muhammad Farooq under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance; 1969, against the District Manager, Road Transport Corporation, Lyallpur. In his application the petitioner has stated that he is an employee of the Road Transport Corporation and an application under section 47xof the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 has been filed in this Court by the respondent against the petitioner. The petitioner has further submitted that the respondent passed an order regarding the petitioner's transfer from Lyallpur to Sargodha on the 15th of June, 1970. The petitioner addressed an applica tion on the 31st of August 1970, to the respondent for permission to undergo medical treatment in Lyallpur but this application, was not accepted. The petitioner has complained that the respondent has wilfully punished the petitioner and thus contravened the terms and conditions of the petitioner's employ ment according to which the petitioner could be posted only in Lyallpur where permanent arrangements for medical aid were available. The petitioner has concluded his application with the following prayer :- "As the order of transfer is 'mala fide' against law and misuse of discretion and has been passed in violation of the provisions of section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, it is, therefore, prayed that the Order of transfer be set aside and the respondent be directed to place arse on duty at the old post at Lyallpur. The cost may kindly be awarded." A reply to the petitioner's application was filed by the respon dent. In that reply it was categorically declared that the petitioner Muhammad Farooq who was a traffic cleaner in the employment of the…