Transferred employ can maintain a suit in Civil Court.

The question to be considered in these revision petitions is whether the City Civil Court, Madras, has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the respondent herein. The relevant facts are as follows:

The respondent joined the service of first petitioner bank as a clerical apprentice in August, 1984 and he was appointed as a clerk in 1985 with effect from 21. 1985. He was confirmed in service in February, 1986. He was working in Calcutta and transferred to Madras in July, 1989. By order dated 111. 1990 he was transferred to Pannaipuram branch of the first petitioner. The Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Employees’ Union raised an industrial dispute questioning the validity of the transfer. While the matter was pending before the Conciliation Authority, the respondent filed the suit O.S.No.9867 of 1990 on 211. 1990 in the City Civil Court, Madras for a declaration that the order of transfer dated 111. 1990 is male fide, illegal and unjust and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from transferring him from Madras to Pannaipuram. He also prayed for a permanent injunction directing the petitioners to allow him to continue at Madras. In the plaint, he alleged that he was the Vice-President of the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Employees’ Union and the Management was in furiated by the protest demonstrations organised by the Union. He referred to the show cause notice issued to him on 210. 1990 for having organised protest demonstrations and his reply dated 11. 1990. He stated in paragraph8 of the plaint as follows:

“...In the second week of November, 1990 the plaintiff came to know that he was going to be transferred. Since the plaintiff had some organisational work in the Union regarding the grievances of members and had to discuss with the leaders of his affiliating Union, i.e., B.D.F.I., he went on leave. On the advice of affiliating Union Leaders, his union raised a dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Madras, on the harassment and victimisation of the employees of his union by the management on 20.11.1990.”

He proceeded to state that after the expiry of the leave, when he reported for work, the impugned order of transfer was served on him. He stated, “the plaintiff submits that the order of transfer of the plaintiff by the defendant bank is nothing but a clear act of victimisation and punishment for being active in the Union. The plaintiff submits that he has been victimised by the management by way of transfer for being an office-bearer of the union and taking active part in his union activities.” He alleged that the action of the petitioners is mala fide and contrary to the transfer policy that a staff will not be transferred from one place to another before completion of three years. According to him, the transfer is a punishment transfer. On those averments, he prayed for the reliefs set out already. Along with the plaint, he filed eight documents. Document No.5 is a copy of the letter from his Union to the Regional Labour Commissioner dated 20.11.1990 and document No.8 is a letter from his Union to the second defendant dated 211. 1990.

2. He filed I.A.No.22348 of 1990 for an interim injunction restraining the defendants from implementing the order of transfer dated 111. 1990 and I.A.No.22349 of 1990 for an interim direction directing the second defendant to permit the respondent to work in his office pending disposal of the suit.

3. After service of summons and notice, the petitioners filed written statement in the suit and counter affidavit in the applications. They contested the maintainability of the suit in the civil court and contended that in view of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In paragraph 5 of the written statement, the following plea is raised:

“5. This defendant submits that in fact the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Employees’ Union of which the plaintiff is Vice-President has