Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARISH KAPOOR versus PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Harish Kapoor v. Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industr - CWP-7272-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 3430 (25 May 2006)

C.W.P. No.7272 of 2006 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.W.P. No.7272 of 2006

DATE OF DECISION: 11.5.2006

***

Harish Kapoor

..PETITIONER

VS.

Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and others.

..RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.S. NARANG.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,

Present:- Mr.O.P. Batra,Advocate

for the petitioner-workman.

***

JUDGMENT:

The petitioner has invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the award dated 16.11.2005 (Annexure P-1) vide which claim of the the petitioner-workman has been dismissed.

The petitioner is an employee of respondent No.2 since 16.10.1975.

It is alleged by the petitioner that on account of his Trade Union activities, he was transferred from Ludhiana to Nawanshahar Doaba as a Clerk/typist vide order dated 6.11.1999. The industrial dispute had been raised in this regard under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The reference was made. The petitioner-workman filed the claim statement with the averments that he has been victimized at the hands of management on account of his trade union activities. His transfer has been made against the policy of the Bank. The management has acted in a mala fide manner by suspending him without serving any charge-sheet, which order was later on revoked by the Disciplinary Authority.

The claim of the petitioner had been contested by respondent No.2.

C.W.P. No.7272 of 2006 2

The allegations levelled by the petitioner, in his claim statement, were denied. It has been pleaded that the transfer of petitioner from Nawanshahar Doaba to Ludhiana was made on account of office requirement as qualified vide circular of the federation of Indian Bank Employees Union dated 3.5.1999. Moreover, disciplinary proceedings for gross misconduct were pending against the workman, therefore, it was not desirable to retain him in the same Branch during the enquiry proceedings. The parties were given the opportunity to lead evidence to substantiate the pleas to corroborate the issues struck upon the pleadings. The claim of the petitioner has been dismissed vide award dated 16.11.2005, which has been made the subject matter of challenge in the instant petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner- workman is a trade union leader and his transfer from Nawanshahar Doaba to Ludhiana is made only to victimize him. It has also been argued that his transfer is in violation of the policy of the bank. The arguments are not convincing. An order of transfer of an employee is an incidence of the service. Such order of transfer is not required to be interfered with lightly by a Court of law, unless the Court finds that either the order is mala fide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer or that the authorities, who issued the order, had not the competence to pass the order.

It is further the case of the petitioner-workman that the transfer cannot be affected before 20 years of service, this argument is of no avail to the petitioner for the reason that he has not placed any such policy on record to substantiate the same.

He, by virtue of trade union leader, cannot claim any preferential treatment or any immunity from transfer when transfer is a condition of service. A discrimination in this regard cannot be made between an employee who is not a union leader and an employee who is a union leader. Rather a bare perusal of award shows that the Labour Court, while considering para Nos. 534, 535, 536 and 537 of the Shastri Award, wherein the demands of the Bank employees unions that no employee should be transferred without his consent and the office bearers of the unions C.W.P. No.7272 of 2006 3

should not be transferred against their will, were rejected. The counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any such regulation barring the transfer of the office bearers of the union, against their will. The petitioner, though has not given any reference to the enquiry pending against him, in his petition, but a bare perusal of award shows that he is facing departmental enquiry. The transfer, since is an exigency of service and is made for administrative reasons, even if the enquiry is pending against him, the Courts are always reluctant to interfere with an order of transfer.

The Labour Court has rightly and justifiably appreciated the facts.

We do not find any infirmity with the impugned award made by the Labour Court.

Accordingly, the present petition, being without any merit, is dismissed in limine.

(ARVIND KUMAR)

JUDGE

(J.S. NARANG)

May 11,2006 JUDGE

Jiten


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.