Bombay High Court
Namdeo S/O Madhuji Ninawe vs Bhandara Urban Co-Op. Bank Limited Thr. ... on 25 April, 2018
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
1 wp.4848.17.jud
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.4848 OF 2017
Petitioner : Namdeo s/o Madhuji Ninawe,
Aged about 54 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Near Nisha High School, Rajguru Ward,
Bhandara, Tah. & Dist. Bhandara.
-- Versus --
Respondents : 1] Bhandara Urban Co-op. Bank Limited,
Through its Chief Executive Officer,
having office at Main Branch, Gandhi Chowk,
Bhandara.
2] Member, Industrial Court, Bhandara
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Shri S.R. Bhongade, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri N.L. Jaiswal, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Shri H. Dhumale, A.G.P. for Respondent No.2.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : 25th APRIL, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
The petitioner is aggrieved by the interim order passed by the Industrial Court dated 18/07/2017 thereby rejecting the application for grant of interim relief pending adjudication of the complaint filed by him under Section 28 of the Maharashtra ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 23:48:50 ::: 2 wp.4848.17.jud Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
02] The petitioner is holding a clerical post with respondent no.1 - Bank. He was serving at its Mohadi Branch from 13/08/2011. His services came to be transferred on 29/05/2017 to Chandrapur. The petitioner, therefore, filed a complaint under Section 28 of the said Act challenging the order of transfer. It is his case that the order of transfer is mala fide especially because prior to the order of transfer, he had filed a complaint challenging the resolution dated 20/10/2016 granting promotion to one set of employees. It was also his case that there were other employees who were never transferred during their service career and that the petitioner had been discriminated against. The petitioner moved an application for grant of interim stay and the learned Member of the Industrial Court by the impugned order refused to grant any interim relief. Being aggrieved, said order has been challenged in the present writ petition.
03] The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of transfer was mala fide and it was the outcome of the ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 23:48:50 ::: 3 wp.4848.17.jud earlier complaint filed by the petitioner. As the petitioner had challenged the promotion granted to some of the employees by approaching the Industrial Court, in a punitive manner, his services were transferred from Mohadi to Chandrapur. Despite the fact that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case, the learned Judge of the Industrial Court refused to grant interim relief. It was further submitted that the petitioner was facing various health problems and, therefore, his transfer to Chandrapur was uncalled for. Referring to the order dated 08/09/2017 passed by this Court, it was submitted that despite making a representation, respondent no.1 has not considered the same sympathetically. It was, therefore, submitted that the petitioner be permitted to continue at Mohadi and the Industrial Court could be directed to decide the proceedings expeditiously.
04] The learned Counsel for respondent no.1 opposed the aforesaid submissions. According to him, as per the settlement entered into by the management with its employees, on completion of five years service at a particular place, an employee would be due for transfer. The petitioner had served at Mohadi from 13/08/2011 and having completed a period of almost six ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 23:48:50 ::: 4 wp.4848.17.jud years, he was transferred. On the same day, about 64 employees were transferred on the basis of the annual transfer policy. The earlier complaint referred to by the petitioner was not the reason for transferring the petitioner. As regards consideration of the representation made by the petitioner, it was submitted that on 18/09/2017, the said representation was considered and the petitioner was informed that he could suggest the name of another employee for mutual transfer. The petitioner, however, did not furnish name of any employee, who was willing to go to Chandrapur in his place. It was then submitted that though respondent no.1 was eager to have the complaint decided, it was the petitioner, who was delaying the proceedings. Relying upon the judgment in Novartis India Limited vs. State of West Bengal and others - (2009) 3 SCC 124., it was submitted that there was no case for granting any relief to the petitioner. 05] I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and had given due consideration to their respective submissions. An interlocutory order refusing to grant interim relief during pendency of the complaint is under challenge. Prima facie the petitioner was serving at Mohadi for more than five years after ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 23:48:50 ::: 5 wp.4848.17.jud which he was transferred along with about 63 employees by the order dated 29/05/2017. In terms of the settlement between the Bank and its employees, the petitioner has served for a period of more than five years at Mohadi. The transfer cannot be said to be a midterm transfer. As regards the contention that because the petitioner had filed a complaint previously challenging the order of promotion, he was victimized, at this stage, there is no material on record to accept the contention of the petitioner even prima facie. That complaint was filed in the year 2016 and the order of transfer has been issued on 29/05/2017. Said aspect would be required to be proved by leading evidence before the Industrial Court. 06] The representation of the petitioner is shown to have been considered sympathetically by respondent no.1. The petitioner was called upon to suggest the name of another employee, who was willing to mutually go to Chandrapur in his place. The petitioner has not been able to suggest the name of any other employee. The respondent no.1 in these circumstances cannot be compelled to again accommodate the petitioner especially when the petitioner has completed a period of more than five years at Mohadi.
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 23:48:50 :::
6 wp.4848.17.jud 07] At this stage, when the complaint is pending before the Industrial Court and there being no material presently on record to accept the contentions of the petitioner, I do not find any case made out to interfere in writ jurisdiction. By clarifying that the observations made in this order are only for deciding the interim application preferred by the petitioner and by directing that the proceedings in Complaint No.18/2017 shall be decided expeditiously and preferably by the end of December, 2018, the writ petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Needless to state that the petitioner is free to join at the place of his transfer.
JUDGE *sandesh ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 23:48:50 :::