Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Barusoru Beeraiah vs Singareni Collieries Company Limited ... on 3 March, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(3)ALD793, 2000(2)ALT232, [2000(86)FLR264]
ORDER
1. The point that fails for consideration and decision in both the writ petitions is substantially similar. Hence, both the writ petitions were clubbed and heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners in these two writ petitions were initially appointed as Badlies to work in Stores on a 'piece-rate' in the year 1990. When they were serving as Badlies in the establishment of the respondent-company they were appointed as "General Mazdoors" in "Category-I" by issuing office order dated 1-3-1996 with retrospective effect that is with effect from 1-9-1995, but allowing monetary benefits only with effect from 1-1-1996. After so appointing the petitioners as "General Mazdoors" in Category-I", they were posted to work at Area Stores, RKP. They were appointed as General Mazdoors vide office order dated 1-3-1996 subject to the petitioners undergoing successful probation period. On completion of the probationary period, the General Manager, RKP issued Office orders confirming the service of the petitioners as "General Mazdoors, Category-I Stores, RKP". When the petitioners had been serving as "General Mazdoors, Category-I" at the Area Stores, RKP, the impugned proceedings came to be issued by the General Manager, RKP redesignating the official status of the petitioners as "General Mazdoors (underground)" in place of the earlier designation conferred upon the petitioners as "General Mazdoors, Category-I Stores". So redesignating the official status of the petitioners, the General Manager, RKP posted the petitioners to work at RK-IA-Incline with immediate effect. Hence, these writ petitions assailing the validity of the impugned orders.
3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the management of the company having appointed the petitioners as "General Mazdoors, Category-I, Stores, RKP" and having confirmed their service in the said cadre ought not to have issued the impugned proceedings to redesignate the official status of the petitioners as General Mazdoors (underground) and posted them to work at RK-IA-Incline and the impugned action of the General Manager, RKP is therefore totally illegal and unauthorised. Secondly, it was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the impugned proceedings were issued by the General Manager, RKP without any reason and without giving opportunity to the petitioners to have their say in the matter and therefore the impugned actions are violative of principles of natural justice.
4. On the other hand, Ms. Uma, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would strenuously contend that the proceeding of the Office dated 1-3-1996 would clearly go to show that the petitioners were appointed as General Mazdoors in Category-I. She would also maintain that in the Office order dated 1-3-1996, it is made very clear to the petitioners that they are liable to be transferred to any of the mine/ department of the company and the petitioners having accepted the appointment subject to that condition cannot have any legitimate grievance now against the impugned action taken by the General Manager-RKP in posting them to work at RK-IA-Incline.
5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for decision is whether the petitioners by force of the appointment order and confirmation order are liable to be transferred to work at RK-IA-Incline which is an underground part of the mine.
6. I do not find any necessity to refer to or consider the initial appointment orders of the petitioners as Badlies in the year 1990. The petitioners came to be appointed as General Mazdoors on regular basis only in the year 1996. The preamble of the Office order dated 1-3-1996 reads:
"Your are hereby appointed as General Mazdoor in Category-I in the pay scale of Rs.65.40-1.08-80.52 with effect from 1-9-1995 notionally allowing monetary benefits from 1-1-1996 and posted to work at Stores, RKP."
7. Above this preamble, the then status of each of the petitioners as Badli worker/Hamali in Area Stores-RKP was shown against each of the petitioners. On satisfactory completion of the probationary period then came the office order dated 8-11-1996. This Confirmation order makes it abundantly clear that the petitioners were confirmed in the cadre "General Mazdoors", Category-I, Stores". Obviously, it is relevant to note that starting from 1990 till the impugned action was taken the petitioners were posted continuously to work at the Area Stores. No doubt, in the impugned order dated 1-3-1996 the management of the company has reserved the power to transfer the petitioners to any of the mine/department work of the company. It is not the case of the petitioners that the company lacks the power to exercise the power reserved by it. By virtue of this clause in the office order dated 1-3-1996, no doubt, the management of the company has the power to transfer all the petitioners or any of the petitioners to any of the mine or department of the company. If there were to be Stores in the underground of the mine, perhaps by virtue of the power retained by the Management of the Company, the petitioners could have been posted validly to work at the Stores underground the mine. Ms. Uma quite fairly submitted that there are no stores underground the mine. If that is so, the question that falls for consideration is whether by virtue of the power retained by the Management of the Company in the office order dated 1-3-1996 to transfer the petitioners to any of the mine/department of the company would enable the management to post the petitioners to work in the underground of the mine. The answer should be "no". I say this because, the office order dated 1-3-1996 as well as the confirmation office order dated 8-11-1996, the copies of which are produced at Pages 4 and 5 of the material papers would clearly go to show that the petitioners were appointed as "General Mazdoors, Category-I, Stores', not as General Mazdoors, (Underground). Therefore, the impugned action taken by the General Manager, RKP to redesignate the official status of the petitioners as General Mazdoors (Underground) and posting them to work at RK-IA-Incline would affect the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioners-employees. Since the impugned action has the effect of affecting the Civil Rights of the employees, I find force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the impugned action is violative of principles of natural justice.
8. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. The proceedings are quashed. No costs.