Kerala High Court
Kozhuvanal Service Co-Operative Bank ... vs State Of Kerala And Ors. on 12 December, 2003
Equivalent citations: [2004(101)FLR46], (2004)ILLJ991KER
Author: K. Padmanabhan Nair
Bench: K. Padmanabhan Nair
JUDGMENT Cyriac Joseph, J.
1. This appeal is against the judgment in W.P. No. 29286 of 2003 which was dismissed by the learned single Judge. The appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. The challenge in the writ petition was against Exhibit P5 order passed by the Government. Exhibit P5 reads as follows:
"In the G.O. read as first paper above an Industrial Dispute between the management of Kozhuvanal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. K-213, Kozhuvanal P.O., Kottayam District and its workman Sri. K.M. Mathew was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki. In the representation read as second paper above the petitioner in the dispute, Sri. K.M. Mathew, has requested to transfer the dispute case from the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki to another Court.
Government have examined the matter in the detail and are pleased to order that the dispute case referred for adjudication as per G.O. cited be transferred from Industrial Tribunal, Idukki to Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha.
The Government Order read as first above stands modified to the above extent."
2. The only contention raised by the writ petitioner before the learned single Judge was that Exhibit P5 was not a speaking order and the Government had not expressed the reasons for the transfer. The writ petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the Management of M.S. Natty Bharat Engg, Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1990(2) SCC 48 : 1990-II-LLJ-211. The learned single Judge held that no prejudice will be caused to the writ petitioner as a result of the transfer of dispute from Industrial. Tribunal, Idukki to Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha and it was further held that transfer was done for upholding the fairness in the proceeding. The learned single Judge refused to exercise his jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only for the reason that the impugned order did not state the reasons.
3. The only contention of the appellant is based on Section 33-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). For convenience Section 33-B of the Act is extracted hereunder.
"33-B. Power To Transfer Certain Proceedings: (1) The appropriate Government may, by order in writing and for reasons to be stated therein, withdraw any proceeding under this Act pending before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal and transfer the same to another Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, for the disposal of the proceeding and the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal to which the proceeding is so transferred may, subject to special directions in the order of transfer, proceed either de novo or from the stage at which it was so transferred:
Provided that where a proceeding under Section 33 or Section 33-A is pending before a Tribunal or National Tribunal, the proceeding may also be transferred to a Labour Court. (2) Without prejudice to the provision of Sub-section (1), any Tribunal or National Tribunal, if so authorised by the appropriate Government, may transfer any proceeding under Section 33 or Section 33-A pending before it to any one of the Labour Courts specified for the disposal of such proceedings by the appropriate Government by notification in the official Gazette and the Labour Court to which the proceeding is so transferred shall dispose of the same."
4. It cannot be disputed that according to the provisions contained in Section 33-B of the Act, the Government can withdraw any proceeding under the Act pending before any Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal and transfer the same to another Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for disposal of the proceeding only by an order in writing and for reasons stated therein. Thus the reasons for withdrawing the proceeding should be stated in the order. Therefore, the question is whether the reasons for withdrawing the proceeding ware stated in Exhibit P5. In our view, on a careful perusal of Exhibit P5 it is seen that the reason for withdrawing the proceeding was disclosed in Exhibit P5. It is stated in Exhibit P5 that the workman had submitted a representation dated December 1, 2001 requesting to transfer the dispute from the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki to another Court. The Government examined the matter in detail and found that the request should be granted. It is obvious that the request of the workmen was the reason for transfer and the Government found the ground for transfer stated in the representation acceptable and, hence, transferred the dispute from Industrial Tribunal, Idukki to Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha. Hence, this is not a case where the Government transferred the dispute without stating any reason in the order.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Associated Electrical Industries (India) (Private) Ltd. v. Its workmen reported in AIR 1967 SC 284 : 1961-II-LLJ-122 and contended that Exhibit P5 order is liable to be set aside. In the above mentioned case, the dispute was transferred not once but twice. All that the orders purported to say was that it was expedient to withdraw from one Tribunal and transfer it to another. The Honourable Supreme Court was of the opinion that the said bare statement made in the orders did not amount to a statement of reason as required by Section 33-B(1) of the Act, As we have already pointed out, in Exhibit P5 order the reason for transferring the dispute was stated. At any rate, the learned single Judge found that no prejudice will be caused to the writ petitioner by the transfer of the dispute and hence the learned single Judge declined to exercise his discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We do not find any valid reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Hence the Writ Appeal is dismissed.