Transfer orders issued by the TN State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd, a State Government undertaking, on February 18, 2011, to four workers were set aside by the Madras High Court as they were “clearly to punish them”. “It is clearly demonstrated that pursuant to the strike notice (given on December 30, 2010) by the trade union of the workers (CITU) conciliation was also pending. The workers (petitioners) were charge sheeted for serious misconduct arising out of the strike action,” Mr Justice K. Chandru, observed and added: “… there are strong reasons to believe that transfers were resorted to as punishments against the petitioners”.

The court was hearing writ petitions from the workers, Mr G. Baskaran, Mr M. Periyasamy, Mr M. Manivannan and Mr P. Ezhilarasan, challenging the order dated February 18, 2011 issued by R-2 [GM, TN State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd] transferring them out of Cuddalore depot to various other depots allegedly on administrative reasons.

According to the petitioners, pursuant to union's strike notice, they went on a one-day strike on January 29, 2011 along with other workers. On the same day, they were suspended pending enquiries into certain charges. A criminal case was also filed against them. They said they had also given complaints against some officials of the Corporation. By the order dated February 18, 2011, R-2 revoked orders of suspension made against them. On very same day, they were given transfer orders dated February 18, 2011.

The petitioners contended that transfer orders were illegal and mala fide. When conciliation talks on issues were pending, they were suspended. The charges against them were yet to be enquired into.

By orders of transfers, the respondents could not do something which they could not achieve by way of disciplinary action. The Additional Advocate General submitted that the conduct of the petitioners was not above board and they had indulged in violence during the strike.

The judge said the petitioners had grievance against the GM. The respondents had powers to transfer the employees. Under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, Sec 2(ra) defined ‘unfair labour practice' to mean any unfair practice specified in V Schedule of the Act. The respondents could not state that the transfer was made in normal course. This was especially when the petitioners were placed under suspension for serious charges, followed by charge memos. Their suspensions were revoked on February 18, 2011. But on the very same day, the respondents resorted to transfer all the petitioners. Therefore, there were strong reasons to believe that the transfers were resorted to as punishments against them.

Citing a judgment of the Apex court in Somesh Tiwari vs Union of India [reported in (2009) 2 SCC 592], the judge held this court had no hesitation to interfere with the orders of transfer. Hence, all the transfer orders dated February 18, 2011 stood set aside, and the writ petitions were allowed.

Related Topics
comment COMMENT NOW