Madras High Court
M. Chellan, S. Ayyannan, Chakkaravel, ... vs Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited, ... on 2 August, 2002
Author: P. Sathasivam
Bench: P. Sathasivam
ORDER P. Sathasivam, J.
1. By consent of both parties writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. The petitioners who are working in the second respondent Mine at Kodihalli in Dharmapuri District, aggrieved by the order of transfer dated 1-7-2002, transferring them from Kodihalli quarry in Dharmapuri District to Thogaimalai quarry at Kulithalai, Trichy District, have filed the above writ petition to quash the said transfer order on various grounds.
2. The case of the petitioners is briefly stated hereunder:
According to them, they are working in the second respondent Mine at Kodihalli in Dharmapuri District from 1989. They are all quarry workers. Most of them belong to Most Backward Class and settled down in the nearby villages. They are paid a net salary of Rs.2,900/- per month. They stay in hutments. They have never been selectively transferred beyond the quarry. Though the Management has general power of transfer under Clause 13 of the Standing Order, it is confined by exigencies of service and also without prejudice to the existing service conditions. The transfer will prejudice their service condition. Transferring such low paid workers like the petitioners who had not seen their life beyond their village is not contemplated in their service conditions. Though the petitioners have made separate representation to the management objecting their transfer, since there has been no reply, filed the present writ petition.
3. On behalf of the respondents, Assistant General Manager, Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited, Chennai-5 has filed a counter affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioners. The Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited (hereinafter referred to as "TAMIN") is wholly owned by Government of Tamil Nadu and it is a Government company established with the object of exploiting mineral wealth in the State of Tamil Nadu. All the 10 petitioners have joined work only during the period between June, 1990 and November, 1990. The present shifting order in question was intended only as temporary arrangement to carry out the mining operation departmentally in the Thogaimalai 276/2 quarry of Kulithalai Taluk of Karur District by deploying manpower from other quarries such as Sivanmalai of Erode Division, Bevanur of the same Pennagaram Division. The present arrangement was a temporary one and no mala fide intention behind the transfer order. By following the established principle of seniority, 10 junior workers of Kodihalli alone were shifted. There is no discrimination. The Thogaimalai 276/2 quarry where the petitioners were ordered to report for duty is a potential quarry which was under the operation of the Raising-cum-sale Agency till 30-6-2002 and on the expiry of the said agency period, and in the light of the orders of this Court, it was decided to carry out mining operation departmentally with effect from 5-7-2002 by introducing modern machineries totally to ensure environment friendly operations. They made all necessary arrangements for immediate transit accommodation for the workers in the new place near the Thogaimalai quarry including subsidised lunch from 5-7-2002. All the other workers transferred from Sivanmalai and Bevanur quarries joined at Thogaimalai 276/2 quarry, while the petitioners are protesting the transfer. An advance to meet the educational expenses for their children was granted. Medical facilities to their family members are being taken care of by the Tamin and subsidised lunch scheme apart from tea allowance has been introduced from 15-5-2002. The transfer in question does not involve any change in service conditions in any manner since the nature of work is same in both the quarries but for change of place and such transfer is very well within the provision of the Standing Orders and already in vogue for workers of any cadres ever since 1991 after Regular scales of pay have been implemented to the workers' category.
4. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned Advocate General for respondents.
5. Mr. N.G.R. Prasad has raised the following contentions:
(i) Since the petitioners-workers working in Kodihalli Mine at Dharmapuri District being paid salary of Rs.2,900/-per month, the present transfer to Thogaimalai quarry at Kulithalai in Trichy District which is 250 K.Ms. away is illegal and unreasonable which uproot their families;
(ii) The transfer will prejudice the petitioners' service conditions because as quarry workers their job is confined to a particular mine.
On the other hand, learned Advocate General, by pointing out the fact that the petitioners are in the cadre of transferable post and the transfer in question does not involve any change in service condition in any manner. According to him, the present transfer is well within the provision of the Standing Orders and already in vogue for workers of any cadres ever since 1991. He also contended that in the absence of violation of statutory rules or mala fide intention, normally this Court will not interfere in the order of transfer. He also highlighted the several benefits being provided to all the workers including the petitioners.
6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions.
7. Even according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, under Clause 13 of the Standing Order, the TAMIN has general power of transfer. However, it is stated that no exigency of service has been mentioned in the impugned order and that the transfer will prejudice to their service conditions. There is no dispute that the petitioners are quarry workers and as per the Standing Orders, which is in vogue for workers after implementation of regular scales of pay, the Standing Orders have been implemented to the workers' category. This aspect has not been seriously disputed. Clause 13 of the Standing Order reads thus:
"...All workmen are liable for transfer from one type of work to the other type, one pit to the other, one face to the other, one establishment to the other as per exigencies of work without prejudice to their service conditions. Refusal to obey such posting orders will be treated as misconduct liable for severe disciplinary action, leading to termination of service..."
It is clear that all workmen under the control of TAMIN are liable for transfer not only from one type of work to other, but also from one establishment to other depending on the exigencies of work and without prejudice to their service conditions. By pointing out the fact that the petitioners are workers working in a mine and living in a particular area not accustomed to any other place, Mr. N.G.R. Prasad relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka and others, reported in 1986 (2) LLJ 516, would contend that the present order of transfer to a far away place cannot be sustained. In the said decision, Their Lordships have held that, "6....It therefore follows that the policy of transfer should be reasonable and fair and should apply to everybody equally. But, at the same time, it cannot be forgotten that so far as superior or more responsible posts are concerned, continued posting at one station or in one department of the Government is not conducive to good administration. It creates vested interest and therefore we find that even from the British times the general policy has been to restrict the period of posting for a definite period. We wish to add that the position of Class III and Class IV employees stand on a different footing. We trust that the Government will keep these considerations in view while making an order of transfer."
It is clear that all employees in a transferable post are subject to transfer. The Supreme Court has made an observation that the position of Class III and Class IV employees cannot be compared with that of other employees and they stand on a different footing. Learned Advocate General relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. H.N. Kirtania, reported in (1989) 3 Supreme Court Cases 445, would contend that since the petitioners are holding a transferable post in terms of Clause 13 of the Standing Orders and in the absence of any material as to violation of statutory rules or mala fide intention, the order of transfer cannot be interfered by this Court. In the said decision, Their Lordships have held thus: (para 5) "5...Transfer of a public servant made on administrative grounds or in public interest should not be interfered with unless there are strong and pressing grounds rendering the transfer order illegal on the ground of violation of statutory rules or on ground of mala fides..."
No doubt, the person concerned in the said decision was a Public Relations Officer in the Regional Passport Office at Calcutta. However, the principle laid down therein is applicable to all cases of transfer.
8. Certain factual details are also relevant. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the present shifting order was intended only as temporary arrangement to carry out the mining operation departmentally in the Thogaimalai 276/2 quarry of Kulithalai Taluk of Karur District by deploying manpower from other quarries such as Sivanmalai and Bevanur, including the petitioners and other workers of Kodihalli. The Thogaimalai 276/2 quarry where the petitioners were ordered to report for duty is a potential quarry and the same was under the operation of a private agency till 30-6-2002 and in accordance with the directions of this Court and at the instance of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, the TAMIN decided to carry out mining operations departmentally with effect from 5-7-2002. it is also stated that Sivanmalai quarry of Kangeyam and kodihalli quarry of Pennagaram are not making any profit in the recent times, that Bevanur R.F. black granite quarry, Pennagaram Division needs huge development work and hence there are surplus labourers there also. In order to avoid the continuous loss and to avert lay off/retrenchment and in order to continue the quarry operations in Kodihalli with limited labour to make it viable and to commence quarry operation in Thogaimalai and to save the situation and provide an alternative employment to the petitioners herein, temporary shifting of the petitioners along with others to Thogaimalai 276/2 quarry was effected. In the counter affidavit they also explained that they made all arrangements for immediate transit accommodation for the works in the new place, besides provision of subsidised lunch and transfer travelling allowance, including payment of advance to proceed to new place. The TAMIN also made provision for re-imbursement of education expenses to the workers, by enhancing the same from Rs.1000/- to Rs.2000/- per child from the academic year 2002-2003. The TAMIN has introduced subsidised lunch scheme apart from tea allowance from 15-5-2002 in all the quarries and mines located in deep interior, forest and high attitude area including Kodihalli and Thogaimalai 276/2 quarries and stainless steel plate and tumbler were also supplied free of cost. It also revived the scheme of furnishing of grocery items to celebrate Pongal 2002. From the above factual details, it is clear that TAMIN has taken so many measures to safeguard the workers for their decent living, besides taking care of education of their children as well as medical facilities to their family members. Though the petitioners are Last Grade workers getting monthly salary of Rs.3,000/-, in the light of the Standing Orders and facilities being provided, I am of the view that the impugned order of transfer cannot be interfered by this Court. The respondents have also demonstrated that Thogaimalai 276/2 quarry has more potential mineral and in order to avoid loss and retrenchment of surplus labourers the TAMIN decided to transfer not only the labourers from Kodihalli quarry, but also labourers from other quarries such as Sivanmalai of Kangeyam in Erode Division and Bevanur of Pennagam Division. It is also seen that even in Kodihalli, the 10 junior most workers alone were shifted; hence there is no discrimination. Though Mr. N.G.R. Prasad has argued that the petitioners are tribes and accustomed to the tribal way of life, as rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate General, the same has not been pleaded in the affidavit; hence I am unable to appreciate the said contention. Further, even on previous occasion, some of the workers were shifted from the existing place to nearby quarries due to the activities of Forest Brigand and when the problem was over, they were again re-deployed in the original place of work.
9. It is also relevant to note that in the counter affidavit the respondents have specifically stated that "...the present shifting order in question was intended only as temporary arrangement to carry out the mining operation departmentally in the Thogaimalai 276/2 quarry of Kulithalai Taluk of Karur District by deploying manpower from other quarries such as Sivanmalai of Erode Division, Bevanur of the same Pennagaram Division...." In view of the categorical stand of the respondents that the present shifting order is only a temporary arrangement and no mala fide intention behind the issue of such order, the same cannot be interfered by this Court. I have already referred to Clause 13 of the Standing Orders which enables the TAMIN to transfer all workmen from one place to another and one establishment to the other. In such a circumstance and in view of the reasons stated in the counter affidavit, I do not find any merit in the claim made by the petitioners. Further, it is seen from the typed-set of papers that petitioners have made representations on 03-07-2002 to the respondents highlighting their grievance. Admittedly, those representations are still pending with the respondents. It is made clear that it is for the respondents to consider the grievance individually and, if the same is acceptable, it is for them to take a decision and communicate the same to the concerned individual.
10. In the light of what is stated above, I do not find any merit in the claim made by the petitioners; consequently, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed with a direction to the respondents to consider the genuine grievance of the petitioners, who made representations dated 03-07-2002 to the respondents, and pass appropriate orders within a period of 2 (Two) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. W.P.M.P. No. 34256/2002 and W.V.M.P.No. 842/2002 are closed.