Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 4951
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
V. DHANAPALAN, J
K. Thirumalaisamy - Appellant
Versus
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn. (Coimbatore) Ltd. and another - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 5887 of 2010
Decided on : 25-09-2012
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S. Girija, adv
For the Respondent: T. Chandrasekaran, adv
The judgment established the principle that unless mala fide is proved, the court cannot interfere with administrative transfers, and government employees have no legal right to insist on being posted at a particular place.
Headnote:
Transfer - Labour Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act - [I.D. No. 76/1996, W.P. No. 2906 of 1998, W.A. No. 730 of 2008] - The court discussed the petitioner's dismissal from service, reinstatement with back-wages, and subsequent transfer. The key legal provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act were interpreted to determine the entitlement to back-wages and the limitations of court interference in administrative transfers.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a driver, challenged an administrative transfer after being reinstated with back-wages following a dismissal from service. The petitioner claimed the transfer was mala fide due to his pursuit of back-wages calculation and a contempt notice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer was made on administrative grounds and there was no evidence of mala fide intention. The court also emphasized the limitations of interference in administrative transfers unless mala fide is proved.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's reinstatement, calculation of back-wages, and the mala fide intention behind the transfer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in the absence of proof of mala fide, it cannot interfere with the order of transfer. It also emphasized the lack of legal right for a government employee to insist on being posted at a particular place.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to make a representation to the respondents after joining the new place of transfer.
V. Dhanapalan, J.
Heard Ms. S. Girija, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. Chandrasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. An administrative order of transfer passed by the 2nd Respondent in proceedings vide *****419*******10. dated 25.2.2010, has been called in question by the petitioner and seeking to quash the same and for a consequential direction to the respondents to allow him to continue to work in the same station (Gobi), he has filed the present Writ Petition.
2. According to the petitioner, he joined as a Driver on 20.2.1995 under the services of the Corporation and is working without any blemish. While so, he was dismissed from service in connection with the charge of unauthorised absence. He raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Salem in I.D. No. 76/1996 and on 30.4.1997, an award has been passed by the Labour Court directing the respondent therein to reinstate the petitioner into service with 50% back-wages and other attendant benefits. Challenging the said Award, the Management had filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 2906 of 1998 before this Court, in which, by an order dated 30.3.2007, this Court held as follows:
13. Having regard to the fact that the finding of the Labour Court is very specific that the absence of the second respondent is not deliberate and not giving information about leave in advance, I confirm the order of the Labour Court, except to modify the award to the effect that the second respondent is not entitled to get any back-wages from the date of dismissal, i.e., from 16.9.1996 till the date of award of the Labour Court dated 30.4.1997. The second respondent is entitled to get back-wages from 1.5.1997 and also continuity of service and all other benefits from 16.9.1996. The amount of 17(b) wages already paid to the second respondent may be adjusted while settling the back-wages payable from 1.5.1997. The payment of 17(b) wages pending disposal of the writ petition establishes the fact of the second respondent's non-employment. Hence, he is entitled to get full back-wages after the award of the Labour Court. The petitioner-Management is directed to re-instate the second respondent with continuity of service from 16.9.1996, but without back-wages till 30.4.1997 and pay back-wages and all other benefits from 1.5.1997. Second respondent shall be re-instated to the service within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and arrears payable from 1.5.1997 after adjusting the amount of 17(b) wages already paid, shall be made within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
3. The said order of the learned Single Judge was challenged in W.A. No. 730 of 2008 and on the basis of an interim order passed in the above Writ Appeal, the petitioner was reinstated into service as Driver on 23.8.2008 and his pay was fixed at Rs. 5,455-115-8095. In the meanwhile, the Writ Appeal was disposed of by this Court on 11.9.2008 with the following direction:
4..... We dispose of this appeal confirming the award of the Labour Court as well as the order of the learned Single Judge in directing reinstatement of the second respondent. But the payment of back-wages for the period from 1.5.1997 to. 23.8.2008 shall be at the rate of 50% after giving credit to whatever payment made as last drawn wages u/s 17(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
4. Pursuant to the said order of this Court, the petitioner made repeated written representations to the respondents to implement the order made in W.A. No. 730 of 2008 of this Court, and finally, he was paid Rs 17,279 as back-wages by way of a cheque on 17.7.2009. Since the back-wages received for the entire period from 1.5.1997 to 23.3.2008 was very low, the petitioner submitted a representation under Right to Information Act, to ascertain the method of calculation as to how the said figure of back-wages had been arrived at, for which he received a communication from the 2nd respondent in Proceeding No. 3538
