Honble SINGHVI, J. — The two petitioners with common name, Jagdish Narain Sharma, have jointly filed this revision petition against the order dated 7.2.92 passed by the Additional District Judge No.l, Kota, dismissing their appeal against the order dated, 10.12.91, passed by the Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate (I) Kota (South) refusing to grant temporary injunction in their favour.

(2). Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner Jagdish Narain Sharma son of Shri Bhorelat was employed as Operator in Linotrone Department of Rajasthan Patrika, Kota and Jagdish Narain son of Ghasi Lal was employed as Pester in the Pesting Department of Rajasthan Patrika, Kota. Both the petitioners were transferred to Bikaner and Udaipur respectively on 7.12.91 without their consent. The plaintiffs petitioners alleged that the order of transfer had been passed unlawfully and with malafide intention of victimising the plaintiffs-petitioners for their union activities. The whole object of effecting transfer was to stultify activities of the Union which had been established by the plaintiffs-petitioners in association with other workers of Kota. The plaintiffs petitioners also claimed that the transfer of the employees could not be effected from factory to a department or office and the action of the Management of Rajasthan Patrika Ltd. was contrary to the provisions contained in certified standing orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. With these allegations the plaintiffs-petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction and sought prayer that the non-petitioners be restrained from transferring them at any other place. Application for grant of temporary injunction was also filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners with a prayer that the defendants-non petitioners be restrained from transferring them at any other place.

(3). The non-petitioners contested the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioners by alleging that the service conditions of the petitioners were governed by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 and the petitioners fall within the definition of the term workmen under Section 2(s) of 1947 Act. They had a specific remedy available to them under the provisions of 1947 Act because that Act is a special enactment and jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in those matters, in respect of which adjudication can be made under the provisions of 1947 Act. The non petitioners also claimed that the transfer of the petitioners had been effected in accordance with the provisions contained in the Certified Standing Orders. The transfer had not been effected with any malice. Rather the transfer had been effected for administrative reasons and it was permissible for the non petitioners to effect transfer employees from one place to another, because, Rajasthan Patrika had its offices at different places.

(4). After considering the pleadings of the parties and after having considered the rival contentions the learned Additional Munsiff No.l (South), Kota held that he had no jurisdiction to hear the claim of the petitioner for cancellation of the transfer or for grant of injunction because of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. Kamlakar ShantaRam Wadke and Others. (1). Learned Munsiff also held that the plaintiffs-petitioners had failed to make out a prima faice case of mala fide and that the transfer was an incidence or service. Therefore, there was no justification for grant of stay in favour of the petitioners.

(5). In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge has also expressed the view that the suit filed by the petitioners was not maintainable and that the transfer had not been effected on account of any malice. He also held that once the petitioners had been relieved, the application for gr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document