Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, The Indian Express (P) Limited and its two officers, challenged an order dated 28 November 2022 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court at Thane, in Complaint (ULP) No. 219 of 2022. The Industrial Court had declared that the petitioners engaged in unfair labour practices under items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act), and temporarily restrained them from transferring the respondent employees (Ganesh Gopinath Rane and Vivek Gajanan Sagvekar) to Lucknow and Chandigarh respectively. The respondents were Senior Printers at the Mahape press of the petitioner company. The petitioners argued that transfer is an incident of service and the respondents were transferred in the ordinary course of business due to operational requirements. The respondents contended that the transfer was mala fide and amounted to unfair labour practice. The High Court held that the Industrial Court erred in granting interim relief without a prima facie finding of unfair labour practice. The court observed that transfer is a normal incidence of service and the employer has the right to transfer employees unless it is shown to be mala fide or victimization. The court found no evidence of mala fides or victimization in the present case. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order of the Industrial Court, and dismissed the interim application filed by the respondents.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Transfer of Employees - Unfair Labour Practice - Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - Transfer is an incident of service and employer has right to transfer employees unless it is shown to be mala fide or victimization - The Industrial Court erred in granting interim relief without finding prima facie case of unfair labour practice - Held that mere transfer without evidence of mala fides or victimization does not constitute unfair labour practice (Paras 10-15). B) Industrial Law - Interim Relief - Prima Facie Case - MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - Industrial Court cannot grant interim relief unless there is a strong prima facie case of unfair labour practice and balance of convenience in favour of employee - The order of transfer was a routine administrative decision and no victimization was established - Held that the Industrial Court's order was unsustainable (Paras 16-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of transfer of the respondent employees by the petitioner employer amounts to an unfair labour practice under items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, and whether the Industrial Court was justified in granting interim relief restraining the transfer.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order of the Industrial Court dated 28 November 2022, and dismissed the interim application (Exhibit-U-2) in Complaint (ULP) No. 219 of 2022.
Law Points
- Transfer of employees is an incident of service
- employer has right to transfer
- transfer not per se unfair labour practice
- items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971 require victimization or mala fides
- interim relief cannot be granted without prima facie case of unfair labour practice
