Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The facts that are relevant for the disposal of these Writ Appeals are stated briefly herein. A strike notice was issued by the Welders' Association of the Respondent on 7.5.2018. Pursuant thereto, an order of transfer was issued to one employee, namely, the General Secretary of the Association, Mr. Satish Kumar. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Pondicherry, by communication dated 14.5.2018, called upon the members of the Association of Welders to participate in conciliation proceedings under section 12 of the Industrial http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)Nos.1684 to 1695 of 2018 Disputes Act, 1947 (the ID Act) on 23.5.2018 at his office. Similar communications were also issued on 5.6.2018 in respect of a conciliation meeting on 13.6.2018 and by a communication dated 8.8.2018 in respect of a conciliation meeting on 24.8.2018. By communication dated 7.9.2018, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Pondicherry, informed the Secretary of the Ministry of Labour and Employment that the conciliation proceedings had failed. Shortly thereafter, there was mass absenteeism by welders and the Executive Director issued an appeal dated 03.10.2018 to the employees concerned to resume work but this did not yield results. Therefore, the Respondent concerned sent individual notices to the employees concerned on 4.10.2018 wherein it was stated that the said employees absented themselves from work without obtaining written permission or sanction from the competent authority on 1.10.2018, 3.10.2018 and 4.10.2018. It was further stated therein that such unauthorised absence caused disruption of work and seriously hampered the achievement of the targets and goals of the organisation. It was further stated that such willful insubordination and absence from duty amounts to a serious misconduct as per Standing Orders 40, 60 (1), 60 (5), 60 (6), 60 (21) and 60 (33) warranting stringent disciplinary action. The impugned transfer orders were issued shortly thereafter on 9.10.2018 in this factual context. Each of the impugned transfer orders, which are http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)Nos.1684 to 1695 of 2018 in pari materia, advert to the unauthorised absence from duty in a concerted action from 1.10. 2018. The said orders also referred to the proposed sit-in-strike at the instance of the employees concerned and to the appeal made by the Executive Director that employees should refrain from such direct action, which would be detrimental to the interest of the organisation. After referring to such disruptive direct action on the part of the employee concerned, the transfer order refers to the terms and conditions of employment and states that the presence of the employee concerned in the factory premises of the Respondent at Trichy is detrimental to industrial harmony and, on that basis, the employees concerned were transferred to other factories in the existing grade and pay along with admissible transfer benefits. The said transfer orders are challenged primarily on the ground that the said orders are punitive and, therefore, illegal.

3. The Appellants were represented by Mr.Ajmal Khan, learned senior counsel, who appeared for Mr.T Antony Arul Raj, Advocate. The learned senior counsel referred to the order of the Writ Court and pointed out that the Writ Court held that the transfer orders were preventive and not punitive. He submitted that the said conclusion is patently erroneous because the Writ Court also alluded to the participation of the employees concerned in the proposed sit- in-strike http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)Nos.1684 to 1695 of 2018 and to their unauthorised absence, which were cited in the transfer orders. On that basis, the learned senior counsel contended that the impugned transfer orders are clearly punitive in nature. For this purpose, he referred to the said transfer orders and pointed out that these transfer orders cite the alleged unauthorised absence, the alleged attempt to organise a sit-in-strike and the alleged disruptive activities as the reasons for the transfer. According to the learned senior counsel, the transfer orders disclose, in no uncertain terms, that the transfers are not on account of administrative exigency but are clearly punitive in nature. In this connection, he referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Somesh Tiwari vs. Union of India (2009) 2 SCC 592. In particular, he relied upon paragraph 16 of the said judgment, which reads as under:

5. Mr A.V.Arun, the learned counsel for the respective Respondents, made submissions in response and to the contrary. He opened by pointing out that five of the Appellants, namely, the Appellants in W.A. Nos. 1684, 1687, 1693, 1694 and 1695 of 2018 accepted the orders of transfer and joined duty in the transferred place. He further pointed out that the impugned orders of transfer were issued on 9.10.2018 whereas the Writ Petitions were filed on 14.11.2018, i.e. more than one month later. In other words, his contention was that the Appellants did not join duty at the transferred place and remained absent for more than one month before filing the Writ Petitions out of http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)Nos.1684 to 1695 of 2018 which the present appeals arise. In this regard, he submitted that the statement in paragraph 5 of the affidavit in support of the respective Writ Petitions that the employee concerned had applied for leave was specifically denied in the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents in the respective Writ Petitions. In order to establish that the employee concerned was put on notice regarding the unauthorised absence and the unauthorised direct action initiatives, he referred to various communications from the Respondents' typed set of papers. In specific, he referred to communications dated 28.9.2018 and to the appeal from the Executive Director on 3.10.2018 to maintain peace and ensure productivity in the organisation. He also referred to the individual letters that were sent on 4.10.2018 to the individual employee concerned, in this regard, and to the conciliation officer's notice in respect of conciliation meetings. He also pointed out that out of 1009 welders, only about 309 welders attended work during the relevant period. In order to substantiate the submission, he referred to a table showing the number of absentees during the relevant period. In effect, he contended that the transfer was for administrative exigencies in as much as it was intended to prevent disruption to work so as to meet the commitments of the organisation. He further submitted that the provision of reasons in the transfer orders does not render the transfer punitive. In order to substantiate the submission, he referred to and relied upon the http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)Nos.1684 to 1695 of 2018 judgment of the Supreme Court in Registrar General, High Court of Judicature of Madras vs. R. Perachi (2011) 12 SCC 137. He relied upon paragraphs 21 and 31 of the said judgment, which read as under:

(g) the transfer is in the existing grade and pay and the employee concerned is eligible for transfer benefits as per the rules.

10. Based on the aforesaid material facts that are set out in the individual transfer orders, it is clear that the transfers were made on account of the unauthorised absence, attempted sit-in- strike, et cetera, which disrupted the work of the Respondent and was thereby detrimental to industrial harmony. On that basis and as provided by the terms of appointment, the transfer orders were issued. Therefore, the question arises as to whether the transfers are bona fide or mala fide. On examining the relevant correspondence leading up to the orders of transfer, we are of the considered view that the said transfer orders cannot be considered to be mala fide. In this connection, as correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Respondents, it is not possible for a large public sector organisation, which services a large order book, to meet its commitments if about 700 out of 1009 welders do not turn up for work. Needless to say, it would cause a complete disruption to the production schedule of the organisation. In such circumstances, transferring the persons responsible for this concerted action cannot be termed as mala fide or as lacking in bona fide. The http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)Nos.1684 to 1695 of 2018 next question that should be examined is whether it, nonetheless, amounts to punishment or an action in lieu of punishment. In this case, pursuant to the transfer orders, in view of the misconduct of the employee concerned, the employee concerned was suspended by an order of suspension-cum-charge memo and an enquiry was conducted, which is said to be in the final stages. Such suspension is the subject matter of another batch of writ appeals, which we heard and in respect of which a separate judgment is being pronounced. From these facts, it is clear that the Respondent intended to and, in fact, initiated proceedings to punish the employees concerned/transferred employees separately for their alleged misconduct. Nevertheless, it should be examined whether the transfers constitute additional punishment. In this connection, it is relevant to bear in mind that the transfers are in the same grade and pay and subject to payment of applicable transfer allowances. Therefore, the service and monetary conditions of the employees concerned has certainly not been modified adversely. Notwithstanding this fact, can it be concluded that the transfer orders are punitive because the unauthorised absence, attempted sit-in- strike and other activities of the employees concerned were referred to in the said transfer orders?