Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
N.J. Jamadar, J.
The Indian Express (P) Limited and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Mr. Ganesh Gopinath Rane and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2438 of 2023
Decided On : 05-06-2023
Unfair Labour Practices - Maharashtra Recognition Of Trade Unions And Prevention Of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Items 9 and 10 of Scheduled-IV - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition Of Trade Unions And Prevention Of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, particularly items 9 and 10 of Scheduled-IV, and their interpretation in the context of deputation orders issued by the employer. The court highlighted the legal principles related to deputation, transferability, and the employer's authority to depute employees to meet specific exigencies.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, engaged in Print Media, issued deputation orders to two employees due to business exigencies. The employees lodged a complaint of unfair labour practices, alleging victimization and interference in union activities. The Industrial Court stayed the deputation orders, leading to the petitioners invoking the writ jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deputation orders did not amount to transfer and were necessitated by business exigency. It held that the orders were not actuated by mala fide and were in pursuit of better utilization of available resources. The court also noted that the employees were not singled out, and the duration of deputation was limited to six months. Therefore, the court quashed the Industrial Court's order and allowed the petition.
Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of deputation orders in the context of unfair labour practices, alleged victimization, and interference in union activities. The court also addressed the employer's authority to depute employees and the distinction between deputation and transfer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the deputation orders, the terms of employment regarding transferability, and the employer's inherent power to depute employees to meet specific exigencies. The court emphasized that the deputation orders were not an exercise in circumvention and did not amount to victimization.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the Industrial Court's order was quashed and set aside. The petitioners were permitted to implement the deputation orders, with a limitation of six months and a commitment to repost the employees at the original establishment after the deputation period.
JUDGMENT:-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties heard finally.
2. By this Petition the petitioners take exception to an order dated 28th November, 2022, passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court at Thane on an application for interim relief (Exhibit-U-2) in Complaint (ULP) No. 219 of 2022, declaring that the petitioners engaged in unfair labour practices under items 9 and 10 of Scheduled-IV of The Maharashtra Recognition Of Trade Unions And Prevention Of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (“the Act 1971”), and temporarily restraining them from indulging in such unfair labour practices and staying the orders dated 7th November, 2022, of deputing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to the offices at Lucknow and Chandigarh, respectively, till the final disposal of the complaint.
3. The petition arises in the backdrop of the following facts.
(b) Petitioner No.1 asserts, on account of intense competitive atmosphere in media business and the situation which arose due to Covid-19 pandemic, the operations at Mahape Printing Press have been considerably affected and instead of three shifts work is being carried out thereat in one shift only. In order to better utilise the workforce, without disturbing the personal and family life of its employees, the Petitioner No. 1 decided to send experienced Printers on six months deputation to the printing presses at other locations. Thus, to best deploy available resources and have smooth and effective operations, under an order dated 7th September, 2022, Respondent No. 1 was deputed to work at Lucknow press with effect from 15th November, 2022. Likewise the respondent No. 2 was deputed to work at Chandigarh press. The petitioners made provisions for reimbursement of the travel expenses, suitable accommodation at the places to which respondent Nos.1 and 2 have been ordered to be deputed and deputation allowance of Rs.2,000/-, per month.
(c) The respondent Nos.1 and 2, upon being served with the deputation orders, lodged a complaint of unfair labour practices under items 3, 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule-IV of the Act 1971, alleging, inter-alia, that the orders were in effect transfers disguised as deputation.
(d) It was alleged that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 were being victimized for having lodged an earlier complaint being complaint (ULP) No.160 of 2022. In the said complaint by an order dated 19th September, 2022, the Industrial Court had directed the petitioner - employer to give seven days advance notice to complainants therein before they were transferred. Yet, under two months of the said interim order, by the impugned order, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were sought to be displaced and harassed under the guise of deputation as the employer could not have effected the transfer of respondent No.1 and 2. The action was, thus, clearly mala fide and also with an oblique motive to circumvent the interim order passed by the Industrial Court in complaint (ULP) No.160 of 2022.
(e) It would be contextually relevant to note that, in complaint (ULP) No.160 of 2022, the principal grievance of the complainants therein was that the employer was interfering in the union activities and elections and had made an endavour to influence the election so that the Union was represented by pliant representatives.
(f) In the complaint, respondent No.1 and 2 moved an application for interim relief, seeking stay to the deputation order dated 7th November, 2022.
(g) The petitioners resisted the application for interim relief by filing an affidavit-in-reply. It was categorically denied that the deputation order was issued either to circumvent the interim order passed in complaint (ULP) No.160 of 2022, or to victimise the
The central legal point established in the judgment is the employer's inherent power to depute employees to meet specific exigencies, the distinction between deputation and transfer, and the interpre....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Labour Court's jurisdiction is limited to the terms of reference and cannot go beyond it. The judgment also emphasizes the need for consen....
Transfer is a standard condition of service, and can only be challenged on grounds of mala fides, which require substantial proof of personal bias or improper motive.
In case of 'appointment on deputation', employer cannot claim employee has no right to continue till completion of deputation - Director's decision not to extend deputation must be based on evaluatio....
The Management's transfer of workmen was ruled illegal due to violations of the Industrial Disputes Act during pending conciliation, affirming the Labour Court's authority to review such actions.
No prior consent required for employee deputation within same Union Territory under Article 52-C, J&K CSR, 1956.
Only aggrieved persons with the requisite eligibility can challenge appointments, and the true nature of an appointment must be assessed beyond its terminology.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment mode for a government post must adhere to the relevant Recruitment Rules and the concept of deputation, requiring consent a....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
