IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
M. Dhandapani, J.
S. THIRUARASU - Appellant
Vs.
NLC INDIA LTD. AND OTHERS - Respondent
W.P. No. 14358 of 2019 & W.M.P. No. 14419 of 2019
Decided On : 30-09-2019
Transfer - Challenge to transfer order - 1956 AIR (SC) 650, W.P. Nos. 3 & 4 of 1971, W.P. No. 24281 of 2009, W.P.(MD) No. 3733 of 2010, W.P. Nos. 42783 & 42784 of 2016, MANU/KE/0111/1977 - The court discussed the transfer order issued by the respondent, the petitioner's union activities, and the legality of the transfer. The court found that the transfer was made on administrative grounds and did not carry any mala fide intention. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the transfer order cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a transfer order issued by the respondent, claiming it was biased and with malafide intention. The petitioner was a Vice-President of a major union and was transferred from Neyveli to Rajasthan. The respondent argued that the transfer was made on administrative grounds and was in public interest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer was made on administrative grounds and did not carry any mala fide intention. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the transfer order cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the transfer order, the petitioner's union activities, and the alleged bias and malafide intention behind the transfer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the transfer was made on administrative grounds and did not carry any mala fide intention. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the transfer order cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the transfer order, stating that the transfer order cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
JUDGMENT/ORDER :
1. Writ Petition is filed challenging the transfer order issued by the 2nd respondent in proceedings O.O. No. CORP/HR/EB/NE/ 0620/2019-28 dated 28.03.2019 and the consequent relieving order issued by the third respondent in proceedings O.O. No. Mine- IA/HR/EB/Re1/Mar 19,2019 dated 30.04.2019.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the services of the first respondent Corporation, which is a company owned by the Government of India and having 4 Mines and 5 Thermal Power Stations in Neyveli and other places, as a IW Gr.I on 14.08.1990 and periodically promoted as Tech Gr. III (C), Tech Gr. II (B) and Tech Gr.I (A), Sr. Tech Gr. II and Sr. Tech Gr.I and then promoted as Chief Technician on 01.09.2012.
3. It is also the case of the petitioner that he is one of the elected Vice Presidents of CITU, NLC Labour and Staff Union, which is espousing the cause of the workers working in the first respondent Corporation without any compromise. The petitioner actively involved in the trade union activities. The Union is against outsourcing or mining activities, which would incur loss to the respondent. The Union is also insisting to regularise the contract workers and to provide job to those, whose lands have been acquired by the respondent. The respondent, in order to weaken the spirit of the workers, started harassing the office bearers by adopting unfair labour practice and victimising the office bearers for trade union activities and that the petitioner has been continuously transferred from one unit to other unit and other division and on 28.03.2019, the petitioner has been transferred to Barsingsar Project, Rajasthan, showcasing the departmental bias of the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner could not enter the company, as his punching was locked.
4. It is further case of the petitioner that the office bearers held talks with the company and that the respondent accepting to withdraw the transfer, obtained a letter from the petitioner on 11.04.2019 and released his punching and as such, from 13.04.2019, he again started attended the company. But, to his shock, on 30.04.2019, through sources, he came to know that the respondent is going to issue relieving order to him. Immediately, the Union raised a dispute with the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Puducherry, who on hearing the dispute, directed the respondent to maintain status quo and posted the conciliation to 02.05.2019. On 02.05.2019, the Assistant Labour Commissioner closed the dispute hurriedly, whereas, he has no power to close the dispute. Therefore, on 06.05.2019, he filed a petition before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Puducherry to reopen the dispute.
5. The petitioner further submitted that in the meanwhile, on 03.05.2019, he received the relieving order from the third respondent through post. Immediately, he sent a representation to the first respondent requesting to withdraw the transfer order, which is not yet considered.
6. Further case of the petitioner is that the respondent Corporation started in the year 1956 and till date no worker has been transferred to outside Neyveli without willing and as such, the act of the respondent in transferring the petitioner to Rajasthan is malafide, arbitrary and with official bias.
7. It is also the case of the petitioner that the first respondent has framed policy for transfer of executives and supervisors, by proceedings dated 28.05.2015, but no such Rule was framed for transferring the industrial workers, which shows that the respondent have never contemplated transfer of workmen, but only to victimise him, he has been transferred to Rajasthan. Even applying Rule 6.2 of the Rules for Transfer of Executives and Supervisors, the respondent ought not to have transferred the petitioner as his wife is working in Jawahar School, Neyveli and apart from that, his second daughter is studying in the same school. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court with this Writ Petition stating that the order of responden
M/s. Kundan Sugar Mills v. Ziyauddin and others
Kundan Sugar Mills case cited supra
Government of Andhra Pradesh v. G. Venkata Ratnam
Mohd. Masood Ahamed v. State of U.P. and others
B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka
Union of India v. S.L. Abbas AIR 1993 SC 2444
Rajendra Rao v. Union of India
National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan
State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal
S.C. Saxena v. Union of India and Others
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.