( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order of his transfer from Ahmedabad to Bhatia passed by the respondents- management.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is an employee of respondents who is working as a Senior Grade Assistent which is a Class III post in the pay scale of Rs. 350 The petitioner has inter alia contended in this petition that he is the Secretary of the Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Employees Union (Union for short hereinafter ). It is alleged that the petitioner has been subjected to harassment and unfair labour practice adopted by the respondents-management because he is engaged in union activities and because of litigations filed by him against the respondents before this court and in various other Courts. In order to get rid off the petitioner as it is further alleged he has been transferred from Ahmedabad to Bhatia. This action of the respondents is allegedly mala fides and to victimise the petitioner who is the Secretary of the Union. According to the ease of the petitioner the respondents-management has transferred him from Ahmedabad to Bhatia which is about 1000 miles away from Ahmedabad soaks to see him out of the sphere of trade union and to keep himself away from participating as a union representative in the union activities which he has been doing for the upliftment of the employees since more than 15 years. It is further pleaded that there are no administrative exigencies for his transfer.

( 3 ) THE petitioner has also alleged that apart from victimisation on account of trade union activities the impugned transfer order is required to be interfered with on the ground of family circumstances of the petitioner which are so compelling for him so as to remain in Ahmedabad. It is further contended by the petitioner that his son is suffering from serious illeness and the treatment which he is given in Ahmedabad is not available in any other place. The petitioner was as such transferred to Ahmedabad on medical grounds particularly in view of the fact hat his son was suffering from such a serious illness. Thus the petitioner has contended that the impugned transfer order passed by the respondents-management is arbitrary tainted with mala fides capricious discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Consuitution of India.

( 4 ) IN short the challenge against the impugned transfer order is made on two grounds (I) that the order is passed with mala rides and (ii) on the compelling family circumstances of the petitioner. The interference by this court is thus asked for against the impunged transfer order on the ground of mala fides and personal family circumstances of the petitioner.

( 5 ) THE respondents appeared and resisted the petition. All the allegations made in the petition are traversed and controverted. It is denied that the petitioner is subjected to any harassment or any unfair labour practice because of he being a union leader or for any litigation filed by him. It is specifically denied that the petitioner has been transferred at a place situated at 1000 miles away from Ahemdabad. It is contended that the distance between Ahmedabad and Bhatia is approximately 400 kms. as staled in the affidavitin-reply. According to the contention of the respondents the petitioner was ordered to be transferred from Ahmedabad to Bauxite Project at Bhatia in Jamnagar District by passing an order dated 3-1-1987 and on the same day by passing relieving order the petitioner was relieved from the head-office with immediate effect. As the petitioner refused to accept the transfer order on 3-1-1987 at about 3. 15 p. m. in presence of the Assistant Manager (Personnel) the respondents had sent a telegram at 4. 25 p. m. regarding there- in the circumstances in which the petitioner refused to accept the order of transfer and relieving order and the same was conveyed to the petitioner. Thus according to the respondents the petitioner