Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)Union Of India And Ors vs S.L. Abbas on 27 April, 1993
35. Another decision relied upon by the
learned Advocate for the Respondents on this
point is the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in a case of Union of India and others Vs.
S.L. Abbas [(1993) 4 SCC 357]. The scope of
judicial review of any transfer order is
considered in that case. Referring to the
same ground mentioned in case relied upon in
previous para, one more ground of violation of
statutory provisions is added. While
considering this aspect and the writ
jurisdiction vested in the High Court and
comparing it with the powers vested in Central
Administrative Tribunal in service matters, it
is held as under in para 6 and 7, which are
worth quoting:
State Of U. P. & Ors vs Gobardhan Lal on 23 March, 2004
37. Lastly, the learned Advocate for the
Respondents relied upon yet another decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of
State of U.P. And others Vs. Gobardhan Lal
[(2004) 11 SCC 402], in which it has been
specifically held that transfer is prerogative
of the authorities concerned and court should
not normally interfere therewith, except when
transfer order shown to be vitiated by
malafides or in violation of statutory
provisions or having been passed by an
authority not competent to do so. It is
further held that allegations of mala fides
must be based on concrete material and must
inspire confidence of the court.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 323A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Societies Registration Act, 1860
Section 14 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Chennai Port And Dock Workers Congress ... vs Union Of India Represented By Its ... on 21 February, 2002
24. So far as this ground is concerned
the learned Advocate for the applicant placed
his reliance on the decision of Madras High
Court in a case of Chennai Port and Dock
Workers Congress (INTUC) Vs. Union of India
and others [2002(94)FLR 1072]. In that case
provisions of Section 9-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 were considered. In that
case a member of the petitioner's association
was transferred to another place without
giving him an opportunity of hearing,
especially when his service conditions do not
contemplate transfer. It is specifically held
that subjecting the workers to such new
condition of service would require compliance
with Section 9-A. However, in the present
case as stated earlier there is a specific
service condition about liability to transfer
anywhere within the jurisdiction of
Maharashtra. This being so, it cannot be said
that the provisions of Section 9-A are
attracted in the present case. This being so
although the ratio laid down in the above
referred case cannot be disputed, the same
17 O.A.181/2013
will be of no use to the applicant, since the
facts are different.
Section 19 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Larsen And Toubro Limited vs Antony Jokim Patekar on 28 August, 2012
25. Another case relied upon by the
applicant' Advocate on this point is the
decision of Bombay High Court in a case of
Larsen and Toubro Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Antony
Jokim Patekar and another [2013 LLR 314]. In
that case the applicant was working as skilled
employee and he was subsequently transferred
as Security Guard in Security Department. It
is specifically held that the Respondents in
that case have changed the service condition
of the applicant which is not permissible. It
was also held that the transfer was based on
considerations other than so called
administrative exigencies. Allegations of
malafide, harassment or humiliation and
degradation of level of work in the transfer
was also made. As stated earlier, in the
present case, the position is totally
otherwise inasmuch as there is specific
service condition regarding transfer and that
the applicant was firstly promoted to a higher
post who worked there for a few years and then
was transferred to Pune. In the same case the
Hon'ble High Court has laid down the following
18 O.A.181/2013
principle of law.