The court emphasized the need for strict adherence to regulations governing transfer on administrative grounds and held that the respondents' conduct amounted to unfair labour practice.

JUDGMENT

Mangesh S. Patil, J. - Heard. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. The learned advocate Mr. Rathi waives service for both the respondents. At the the request of the parties, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. The facts which are relevant for the decision of the Writ Petition and regarding which there is no dispute between the parties are to the following effect :

i. The petitioner is serving in a clerical grade with the respondent No.1 Corporation and was posted in the Divisional Office at Latur. He was served with an official communication dated 31.05.2021 asking him to give three options for transfer by making a reference to some internal confidential correspondence between the respondents inter se.

ii. He filed complaint ULP No.74/2021 under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (herein after the PULP Act). By the order dated 21.06.2021 the Industrial Court granted him interim relief holding that there was a prima facie case in his favour and he would be put to irreparable loss and inconvenience if he was transferred. The respondents were directed not to initiate his transfer pursuant to the communication dated 31.05.2021 till decision of the main complaint.

iii. On 02.06.2021 the respondent No.2 issued a transfer order and the respondent No.1 also issued relieving order.

iv. He then filed a second complaint bearing ULP No.79/2021 under Section 28 of the PULP Act. On 14.07.2021 he withdrew it.

v. He filed an Application (Exhibit U-14) under Section 30(2) read with Section 32 of the PULP Act in the first complaint. He prayed to stay the effect of the transfer order dated 22.06.2021 and the relieving order issued by the respondent No.1. He also sought declaration that the respondents have indulged in unfair labour practice and further claimed direction restraining them from resorting to unfair labour practice.

vi. The respondents contested that Application by filing say. They denied to have committed any unfair labour practice. They contended that after passing of the interim order on 21.06.2021 the communication dated 31.05.2021 was withdrawn and the complaint itself had become infructuous. They also raised objection to the maintainability of the Application under Section 30(2) read with Section 32.

vii. After hearing both the sides, by the order which is impugned in this Writ Petition, the learned Member of the Industrial Court rejected the Application (Exhibit U-14).

3. There is no dispute about the fact that the relation between the parties as far as the transfer is concerned is regulated by the regulation No.5/2014 dated 03.05.2014. The petitioner comes under Class-III category. Regulation 8 contains several provisions touching the aspect of transfer on administrative ground. As per Clause (C), tenure of a Class-III employee in the ordinary course has to be six years. After first three years his duties can be changed. After completion of further period of three years on such changed position he can be transferred in the same department to some other branch or depot in the month of March. As per Clause E(2) in exceptional circumstances or for special reasons or on account of some complaint if the competent authority is satisfied that an employee is to be transferred he can do so by recording reasons in writing and with the prior permission of his immediate superior.

4. According to the respondents it is pursuant to such enabling clause that the respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order transferring the petitioner. It is quite clear that this provision regulates the powers of the respondents to effect a transfer under exceptional circumstances by following the requisite procedure. A bare perusal of the order of transfer dated 22.06.2021 reveals that with a bald two word reasoning that "for administrative reasons" the petitioner has been directed to be transferred. The order has been issued by the respondent No.1. It doe