Back
High Court of Patna (RANCHI BENCH)
S.B. Sinha, J.
Ganesh Chandra Jha
S.R. Prasad and others – Petitioner
Vs.
Steel Authority of India and others - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case Nos. 1995 and 1996 of 1990 (R)
Decided on : 19.3.1991
TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEES - CONDITIONS OF SERVICE - CHANGE IN CADRE - CONSENT OF EMPLOYEE - SENIORITY AND PROMOTION - ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, SECTION 9A.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, working as Inspectors or Inspecting Assistants in the Inspection and Progress Department of Bokaro Steel Plant, were transferred to different departments without their consent. The petitioners contended that the transfer orders were arbitrary and discriminatory as they would lose chances of promotion to the executive cadre and would have separate seniority and line of promotion in the transferred departments.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the transfer orders were violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as they were not based on any rational or objective criteria and were passed without following any policy decision or guideline. The court also held that the transfer orders amounted to a change in the conditions of service of the petitioners, which could not be done without their consent or without following the procedure laid down in Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the transfer orders were arbitrary and discriminatory? 2. Whether the transfer orders amounted to a change in the conditions of service of the petitioners? 3. Whether the transfer orders were passed in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the transfer orders were arbitrary and discriminatory as they were not based on any rational or objective criteria and were passed without following any policy decision or guideline. 2. The court held that the transfer orders amounted to a change in the conditions of service of the petitioners, as they would lose chances of promotion to the executive cadre and would have separate seniority and line of promotion in the transferred departments. 3. The court held that the transfer orders were passed in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution as they violated the principles of equality before law and equal protection of law.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the transfer orders. However, the court clarified that the respondents were at liberty to take suitable action in the administrative exigency upon formulation of a policy decision in this regard and in accordance with law.
S.B. Sinha, J.
These two writ applications involving common questions of law and fact were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. In CWJC 1995/90R the petitioner has sought for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the office order dated 4.7.1990 as contained in Annexure-1 whereby and whereunder the petitioners who were working in the Inspection and Progress Department were directed to be transferred and posted to the Inspection wing of Research and Control Laboratory in parallel grade.
In C.W.J.C. 1996/90R, the petitioners have sought for issuance of appropriate writ for quashing an office order dated 4.7.1990 as contained in Annexure-1, whereby the petitioners who were posted in the Inspection and Progress Department were directed to be transferred to Internal Audit Department.
2A. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. The petitioners in both the writ applications had been working as Inspectors or Inspecting Assistants in the Inspection and Progress Department of the Bokaro Steel Plant of the respondent-company. According to the, petitioners, the said Inspection & Progress Department undertakes inspection of materials used by the Bakaro Steel Plant from technical point of view wherefor technical knowledge in the electrical or mechanical engineering is required. The petitioners are qualified Engineers having Diplomas in Electrical or Mechanical Engineering.
3. As noticed hereinbefore, by reason of the impugned orders as contained in Annexure-1 to each of the writ application s the petitioners have been transferred and posted to different Departments. The petitioners have contended that as in terms of the impugned office order dated 4.7.1990 they would have separate seniority and line of promotion in the transferred Department, the action of the respondent no. 2 is arbitrary and discriminatory. The petitioners have further contended that by reason of the said transfer, they would lose chances of promotion to the executive cadre.
4. The respondents on the other hand, in their counter affidavit inter alia contended that the Company had the requisite jurisdiction to transfer an employee from one Department to another Department. The said provision of transfer reads as follows:-
"Any workman shall be liable to be transferred from the works to any establishment of the company either at Bokaro Steel City or outside and shall also be liable to be transferred from one department to another or from one job to another. Such transferred workmen will be entitled to such allowances and other amenities which may be applicable to other workmen in similar job; where the workman concerned is transferred.
5. The respondents have contended that by reason of the impugned orders of transfer, their chance of promotion were not marred in as much as they would be given time bound promotion. It was further contended that the consent of the petitioners were not necessary for being transferred from one Department to another Department. Further, it has been accepted that the petitioners of CWJC 1996/90R were asked for an option but despite the fact that they did not give their option to be transferred, the impugned orders of transfer were passed.
6. In a supplementary counter affidavit, it has been stated that due to reduction in the Inspection & Progress Department, some Inspectors and Inspecting Assistants were transferred to other Departments where there existed necessity of additional man power. It was further stated that the nature of the job in the new Department is not inconsistent with the nature of job in the parent department of the petitioners and according to the respondents, the technical background of the petitioners would be of considerable help in the matter of discharge of their duties in the New Department. It was further stated that the matter was thoroughly discussed with the Deputy Labour Commissioner and some of the Unions had also agreed to such transfer.
7. The petitioners in repl
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
