JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, after calling for the concerned records from the Labour Court, Puducherry, quash the Award of the Labour Court, Puducherry, dated 31.03.2016 in I.D.(L).No.27 of 2014 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently hold that the order of the respondent transferring the workmen concerned in the writ petition, viz., (1) E.Murugan, (2) A.Veerasami, (3) R.Raja, (4) M.Lingeswaran, (5)L.Pachaiappan, (6) L.Gnanamurthy and (7) K.Kannan, as illegal, arbitrary, without power and authority and in colourable exercise of power and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the workmen concerned in this Writ Petition, viz., (1) E.Murugan, (2) A.Veerasami, (3) R.Raja, (4)M.Lingeswaran, (5) L.Pachaiappan, (6) L.Gnanamurthy and (7) K.Kannan in Puducherry, with full back-wages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.)

1. The petitioner-Puthiya Jananayaka Thozhilalar Munnani, has filed the present Writ Petition seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, after calling for the concerned records from the Labour Court, Puducherry, quash the Award of the Labour Court, Puducherry, dated 31.03.2016 in I.D.(L).No.27 of 2014 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently hold that the order of the respondent transferring the work-men concerned in the writ petition, viz., (1) E.Murugan, (2) A.Veerasami, (3)R.Raja, (4) M.Lingeswaran, (5)L.Pachaiappan, (6) L.Gnanamurthy and (7)K.Kannan, as illegal, arbitrary, without power and authority and in colourable exercise of power and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the work-men concerned in this Writ Petition, viz., (1) E.Murugan, (2) A.Veerasami, (3) R.Raja, (4)M.Lingeswaran, (5) L.Pachaiappan, (6)L.Gnanamurthy and (7) K.Kannan in Puducherry, with full back-wages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the work-men concerned in the Writ Petition, are working under the respondent-Company for a period ranging from six to ten years. The respondent-Company was involved in manufacture of washing soap, washing powder, toilet soap, shampoo, face powder, etc. The respondent employed 183 permanent employees.

3. According to the petitioner, an Union was formed in order to espouse various grievances of the work-men and represent their interests with the Management. According to the petitioner, the respondent- Management started victimising the office bearers of the said Union, as the Management was supporting its own Union.

4. According to the petitioner, there was some dispute in regard to the Union's activities, as the Management was sponsoring its own Union and was attempting to victimise the work-men who have joined in the Union which were not sponsored by them. When some workers who resigned from the Union sponsored by the Management, the Management did not take it lightly and the Management refused to provide them work when they entered into the factory premises. Series of telegrams were also sent by the work-men concerned for denial of employment. A representation was also submitted to the Conciliation Officer concerned.

5. When an action was initiated from the Deputy Inspector of Factories in response to the complaints by the Association of the work-men concerned, it was informed that seven work-men have been transferred to a different locations. Out of seven employees, who were transferred, three were to a place called Silvasa, which was nearly 1200 Kms. away from Puducherry. Four of the work-men have been transferred to Gummidipoondi. The workers who had been transferred to Silvasa, had no knowledge of Hindi, which alone was the working language in that area and they were merely loaders and last grade servants earning a meagre monthly wages. It is impossible for the work-men to work and to survive in a far away distant place not having knowledge of Hi