Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Victimisation in Central Administrative Tribunal vs Indo-German Tool Room on 31 October, 2013Matching Fragments
4. Respondent No.2 with malafide intention and to victimise the applicant issued his transfer order on 21.02.2013, relieving him on the same day (A.O.H.) and directing him to join at Pune outlet on the next day without availing joining period.
5. The applicant was working as Store Keeper even after his promotion at Aurangabad and the said post is not available at Pune outlet/Extension Centre. Transfer order was issued with a revengeful attitude and by using penal measures and by way of punishment. At the time of issuance of the transfer order the applicant was not heard nor opportunity of hearing was ever granted to the applicant. The impugned order of transfer is, therefore, illegal and is tainted with malafides, inasmuch as the service conditions of the applicant were also changed in violation of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
10. According to the Respondents the transfer order was issued in pursuance of the constant demand from Pune Training Centre for an additional hand for carrying out the work of data entry as the said centre was required to maintain a large scale data of students who undergo the training. Since the applicant was promoted as data entry operator and he worked in the said capacity for a few years at Pune he was found most suitable for the said work and hence was transferred to Pune. The transfer order cannot be said to be tainted with malice or malafides nor the same has been issued by way of punishment or to victimise the applicant. The service conditions of the applicant were not changed nor he was granted any inferior post to the previous post of Store Keeper. There was no reason for the applicant to approach the Industrial Court or this Tribunal challenging the transfer order.
16. On the basis of the submissions made before me and the material produced on record the following point arises for my consideration:-
whether the transfer order dated 21.02.2013 issued by Respondent No.2 is liable to be set aside on the ground that it is tainted with malafides and the same is issued by way of punishment to the applicant and to victimise him?
17. I record my finding in the negative for the following reasons.
R E A S O N S
18. It is not disputed that Respondent No.1 is the Registered Society and a Government Agency vide Registration Certificate at Annexure A-2 and the office order dated 25.10.2007 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions reveals that Respondent No.1 was declared as Autonomous Body under the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises vide letter dated 13.12.2007 on record annexed with Annexure A-2 issued by the Deputy Director (TR-1) of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Government of India. On the basis of the Notification issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, the Respondent No.1 was brought under the jurisdiction of this Tribunal by virtue of the provisions of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with a view to get the employees benefit of speedy redressal of their grievances. This is how this dispute comes within the competence of this Tribunal for its adjudication.
38. It is thus, obvious that so far as the issuance of transfer is concerned, law laid down is well settled. It is not the case of the applicant that transfer order was issued by incompetent authority or that the same is in contravention of any rules or regulations. It, therefore, cannot be said that transfer order is tainted with malafides or that the same has been issued only with a view to victimise or punish the applicant. From the material produced on record it cannot be said that the transfer order Annexure A-1 is tainted with malice or the same was issued to victimise or punish the applicant or to put him in a lower position, especially when he was not reverted but was promoted to the higher post and in any case none of the 3 grounds raised by the applicant are said to be made out for seeking the necessary redress.