JUDGMENT :

(Prashant Kumar, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed by an employee of a bank challenging his transfer order from Kanpur to Hardoi.

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner no.1 is an Employees’ Union and petitioner no.2 is an employee of the bank and also an office bearer of the petitioner-Union. Petitioner no.2 had joined the bank on 18.7.2013 in the clerical cadre and was first posted at Hardoi. After completing two years, on 30.7.2015 he was transferred to Kaushalpuri Branch in District-Kanpur. While being posted at Kanpur, he became the General Secretary of the petitioner-Union.

3. On 28.1.2021, petitioner no.2 was transferred from Kaushalpuri Branch to G.T.B. Marg Branch in the same district i.e. Kanpur. Immediately on his transfer, a notice for strike, under Section 20 of ‘The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947’ (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), was given by the petitioner-Union, which culminated into conciliation proceeding by the Conciliation Officer. The Management of the Bank appeared in the conciliation proceeding wherein they agreed to consider the demand of the Union raised before the competent authority under the Industrial Disputes Act relating to transfer of petitioner no.2 and modified the transfer order and posted him at the Main Branch of the bank at Kanpur.

4. On 21.3.2022, the bank transferred petitioner no.2 from Kanpur to Mallawan Branch in District-Hardoi. Immediately, on the same day, again a strike notice (under Section 20 of the Act) was again given by the petitioner-Union. The notice was issued by Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Kanpur to the bank for reconciliation.

5. In addition to this proceeding, petitioner no.2 against his transfer, had filed a complaint with respondent no.1 i.e. Central Government Industrial Tribunal (Labour Court), Kanpur (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred as ‘the Tribunal’) invoking the provisions of Section 33A of the Act. This complaint was made on the ground that mandatory provisions of paragraph 535 of Sastry Award (dated 16.6.1971) was not followed and sought protection under Section 33 (3) of the Act. He further alleged that his transfer was done with malafide intention and bad motive. He also mentioned that the proceedings are pending before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) and the date for conciliation was fixed on 25.3.2022. He further alleged that transfer was made on the behest of the rival Union and the transfer amounts to “unfair labour practice” as defined under Section 2(ra) of the Act. The transfer has not been done in business interest or administrative exigencies of the bank, but the same has been made with colourable exercise of power to vindicate the General Secretary of the petitioner-Union, who has been espousing the cause of fellow employees. The transfer was punitive and was to victimize the petitioner for trade union activities. Along with this complaint, there was an application for interim relief, which was decided by respondent no.1 on 25.4.2022 cancelling transfer order dated 21.3.2022 giving liberty to the Management of the Bank to give posting to petitioner no.2 at a branch nearer to G.T.B. Marg Branch in District-Kanpur.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by respondent no.1 the bank on 25.4.2022, preferred Writ-C No.15734 of 2022 before this Court. The Hon’ble High Court was pleased to stay the effect and operation of the order dated 25.4.2022 by means of order dated 31.5.2022, which is being quoted below for ready reference :-

“1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that undisputedly the post on which the respondent-workman was engaged from before was transferable. Without answering the reference, the Labour Court has erred in providing for an order staying the effect of the transfer order.

2. Matter requires consideration.

3. Request has been made on behalf of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents for accommodation. It is the last sess