Order of transfer not to be interfered unless done in violation of statutory provisions.

Shivaraj Patil, J.

1. Heard the learned, counsel for the parties.

2. These writ appeals are directed against the common order dated 18.9.1998 made by the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 7085, 7086, 11394 and 11395 of 1998. Writ Petition Nos. 7085 and 7086 of 1998 were filed by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Employees Union, and Writ Petition Nos. 11394 and 11395 of 1998 were filed by the concerned "protected workmen", challenging the orders of transfer. Since, the learned single Judge has given sufficient details leading to the filing of the writ petitions, we do not think it necessary to state the facts in detail again.

3. In the writ petitions, it was pleaded that the "protected workmen," coming within the meaning of Sec. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") could not be transferred in view of the decision taken on 9.5.1989 on various demands, in the meeting held between the Management and the employees Union. The respondents-Corporation, in the writ petitions, contended that the persons who were claiming to be protected workmen in the writ petitions challenging their transfer were not 'protected workmen' and therefore they could not claim privilege on that ground resisting their transfer orders.

4. The learned single Judge, by his common order dated 18.9.1998, dismissed all the writ petitions, taking the view that the persons claiming that they were protected workmen were not protected workmen in the absence of any recognition as such by the management, having regard to Sec. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act and Rule 65 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 (for short the Rules): the item relating to transfer in the minutes dated 9.5.1989 was in the nature of guidelines in regard to transfer of protected workmen, which were not enforceable in court of law; and that the writ petitions filed by the employees' Union relating to transfers of some individuals were not maintainable.

5. Shri V. Prakash, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned single Judge manifestly erred in not taking into consideration the delay on the part of the management in recognising the employees in the list of 'protected workmen' given by the employees' Union on 23.9.1997 within the time; if the management has delayed in responding to the letter of the Union dated 23.9.1997 giving the list of protected workmen, the appellants cannot be blamed for that; the management by its letter dated 23.2.1998, almost a period of five months, requested the Union to furnish a fresh list of employees, eliminating the supervisory cadre of employees (office bearers) with (i) Name, (ii) Designation, (iii) Place in which now working, and (iv) Post (office bearership) now holding in the Union and the place, for considering them as protected workmen. According to the learned counsel, the list given by the Union on 23.9.1997 held good for the subsequent calendar year; and until a new list was given by the Union and recognised by the management, the old list would continue to be valid in regard to the protected workmen. In support of his submission he relied on the decision in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. D. J. Bahadur and others.

6. Per contra, Shri A. L. Somayaji, learned senior counsel for the respondents sub-mitted that, (i) the learned single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petitions filed by the management challenging the individual orders of transfer of workmen as not maintainable, (ii) Sec. 33 of the Act will help the protected workmen during the pendency of proceedings pending before the authorities/forum mentioned in the said section; since no proceedings were pending before such authorities/forum, the workmen were not protected from the orders of transfer; (iii) As per Rule 65 of the Rules, the list will be valid only for one year; in the absence of any list recognised by the management as to protected workmen, the orders of transfer which were