Point of Law: Petitioner - Union, primarily, is that various suggestions which were given on their behalf have not been considered by the FCI. On the other hand, the stand of the FCI is that the Transfer Policy is completely non-arbitrary, is transparent, and ensures equal treatment to all workers.

JUDGMENT :

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the new Transfer Policy dated 22nd March 2021, introduced vide Circular No. EP-03-2021-06, titled “Comprehensive Transfer Policy Guidelines for employees of Food Corporation of India” which has been brought into effect for employees under Categories I to IV of the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter “FCI”). The prayers in this writ petition are:

“It is therefore prayed that the present writ petition of the Petitioner may kindly be accepted and allowed and a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued to the Respondent:-

(i) Holding and declaring the said new transfer policy dated 22.03.2021 to be illegal and unconstitutional and not binding on the employees.

(ii) Permanently restraining the respondent from enforcing and implementing the said promotion policy dated 22-03-2021.

(iii) Directing the Respondent not to implement the impugned policy in breach of the Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 during the pendency of the proceedings of the Industrial Disputes between the parties challenging the impugned transfer policy.

(iv) Such other and further reliefs as is deemed fit, may also be awarded to the Petitioner.

(v) Costs throughout be also awarded to the Petitioner.”

3. The challenge has been raised on behalf of the Petitioner-labour Union which claims to be representing several Workmen, falling in various categories of workers with the FCI. The challenge is to the effect that the new Transfer Policy is contrary to law on the following grounds:

(i) Violative of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the conditions stipulated therein-under.

(ii) That inspite of the copy of the policy having been issued to the Labour Union only on 24th February and only one week time having been granted to furnish comments, the said Transfer Policy was notified on 1st March, i.e. within a week itself. This is disputed by Mr. Manoj, ld. counsel for the Respondent-FCI, who submits that the Policy was, in fact, notified only on 22nd March and the requisite period for furnishing comments was duly granted to the Union.

4. On the first date of hearing, i.e. 12th July 2021, a preliminary objection qua maintainability of the present petition was raised by ld. Counsel for the Respondent. Accordingly, submissions have been heard on the maintainability of the present petition before this Court.

Submissions on Maintainability

5. Mr. Manoj, ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent-FCI, submits that the FCI has been declared as an essential service, with the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The FCI had earlier issued a policy dated 12th February 2014 which has been superseded by the current policy. The intention of the current Transfer Policy, introduced on 22nd March 2021, is to make sure that there is fairness, reasonableness and any arbitrariness is removed. The Transfer Policy, in his submission, is meant to uphold transparency, so as to remove discretion in the officers, as the Government noticed that some of the employees of the FCI were being stationed in specific zones and divisions without being transferred for several years. This according to the FCI was contrary to Regulation 17 of the FCI Staff Regulations, 1971 which clearly provides that the employees could be transferred anywhere in India.

6. Mr. Manoj, ld. Counsel, further submits that the Transfer Policy applies to employees belonging to Categories I to IV, however, the Petitioner-Union represents only the employees falling in categories III, IV and V.

7. He urges that the settled position in law is that a policy decision cannot be challenged, unless and until it is held to be mala-fide, unfair or discriminatory. The following judgments are relied upon by Mr. Manoj, to canvass this proposition:

(i) Ugar Sugar Works Limited vs. Delhi Administration, (2001) 3 SCC 635

(ii) Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu