Back
1989 Supreme(All) 438
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. C. MATHUR, S. N. SAHAY
CENTRE OF INDIAN TRADE UNIONS - Appellant
Versus
ACTG.C.J.OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT - Respondents
W. P. 5551 Of 1989
Decided On : 08/30/1989
I.B.SINGH, ROBIN MITRA
The power of transfer conferred under the second proviso to Clause 14 of the U. P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, is discretionary and the Chief Justice is not obliged to pass a reasoned order containing all the points raised by the parties in support of and against the transfer. However, the order must reflect some valid basis for the transfer.
Headnote:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - TRANSFER OF CASES - POWER OF CHIEF JUSTICE - U. P. HIGH COURTS (AMALGAMATION) ORDER, 1948, CL. 14, SECOND PROVISO - EXERCISE OF DISCRETION - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SCOPE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a company, challenged the order of the Acting Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court transferring a writ petition filed by it at Lucknow to the Allahabad Bench of the Court. The transfer was ordered under the second proviso to Clause 14 of the U. P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, which empowers the Chief Justice to order the transfer of any case or class of cases arising in the erstwhile province of Oudh to Allahabad.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the power of transfer conferred under the second proviso to Clause 14 is discretionary and the Chief Justice is not obliged to pass a reasoned order containing all the points raised by the parties in support of and against the transfer. However, the order must reflect some valid basis for the transfer.
Issues: 1. Whether the power of transfer conferred under the second proviso to Clause 14 of the U. P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, is discretionary or not? 2. Whether the Chief Justice is obliged to pass a reasoned order containing all the points raised by the parties in support of and against the transfer? 3. Whether the order of transfer must reflect some valid basis for the transfer?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the power of transfer conferred under the second proviso to Clause 14 of the U. P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, is discretionary. 2. The Court held that the Chief Justice is not obliged to pass a reasoned order containing all the points raised by the parties in support of and against the transfer. 3. The Court held that the order of transfer must reflect some valid basis for the transfer.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the impugned order of transfer was not arbitrary or without basis and that the Acting Chief Justice had exercised his discretion in the interest of justice.
( 1 ) THIS petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 13-7-1989, Annexure-1, passed by the Acting Chief Justice of this Court, whereby Writ Petition No. 3987 of 1989, M/s. J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd. v. State of U. P. and others, has been directed to be transferred to the Allahabad Bench of this Court. The order has been passed under the second proviso to clause 14 of the U. P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948. A few facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated.
( 2 ) THERE was dispute between the Management, of J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. , for short Management, and the workers of the Company which was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Allahabad; it is adjudication Case No. 15 of 1986. The Tribunal gave its award on 24-12-1988; it is popularly known as "pandey Award". The State Government did not accept the award and cancelled the same by order dated 27-2-1989. The Management has challenged the cancellation order through a writ petition filed at Allahabad which is still pending.
( 3 ) THE labour department levied recovery of Rs. 35 lacks against the Company on account of arrears of wages of the workers. The Management has challenged the recovery proceedings by filing another petition at Allahabad which is also pending, although the claim of the petitioner is that it has become infructuous.
( 4 ) WITH effect from 15-5-1989 the Management declared lock-out in the Company. The State Government has declared this lock-out illegal through order dated 17-51989. Against this order, the Management has filed writ petition No. 3987 of 1989 at Lucknow. This petition is also pending. Certain interim orders were passed in this petition whereunder the Management was required to make some payment to the workers towards wages. By order dated 22-6-1989 it was also provided that "the order that the officers of the petitioner will not be arrested till the date of hearing shall continue. "
( 5 ) ON 3-7-1989 the State filed counter-affidavit along with C. M. An. No. 8616 (W) of 1989 for vacation of the interim order. The same day order was passed "put up with the record in the last week of July, 1989. "
( 6 ) IN the writ petition, the State of U. P. , the Additional Labour Commissioner, Kanpur. The District Magistrate, Kanpur City and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur City, were impleaded as opposite parties 1 to 4. no Labour Union was impleaded. Later some Labour Unions got themselves impleaded. These are (1) Centre of Indian Unions Committee, Kanpur, (2) Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh, (3) Suti Mill Mazdoor Union (HMS), Kanpur and (4) Textile Labour Union, Kanpur. Some of them moved applications for modification or vacation of interim order. The application for impleadment was made by the last named Union on 6-7-1989 and it was directed by order of the same date to be put up on 12-7-1989.
( 7 ) ON 10-7-1989 the Management moved an application under Cl. 14 of the Amalgamation Order before the Acting Chief Justice at Lucknow for transfer of Writ Petition No. 3987 of 1989 to the Allahabad Bench of this Court, after serving copies of the application upon the learned Chief Standing Counsel and the counsel for the Suti Mill Mazdoor Sabha and Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh. No notice of this application was given to the present petitioner or to its counsel. The application was allowed the same day by order endorsed on the reverse side of the application. A perusal of the order shows that, apart from the learned counsel for the Management, the learned counsel for the Suti Mill Mazdoor Sabha and Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh, and the learned Standing Counsel for the State of U. P. appeared before the Acting Chief Justice and none opposed the transfer of the case.
( 8 ) ON 12-7-1989 application was moved on behalf of the present petitioner for recall of the transfer order dated 10-7-1989. The order endorsed on the reverse side o
