Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Pandhari Ramrao Narwate, was employed as a Class IV Conductor with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC). By order dated 26.10.2019, he was transferred from Udgir to Latur. He challenged this transfer by filing Complaint ULP No. 262 of 2018 before the Industrial Court, Latur, under Section 28(1) and Items 3, 9, and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint on 03.02.2023, holding that the transfer was not an unfair labour practice. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The petitioner argued that the Industrial Court misread the ratio of judgments and erred in holding that the transfer was not vindictive. The respondent opposed, stating that the transfer was on administrative grounds due to the petitioner's 17 instances of misconduct, including defaults and lack of punctuality. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the transfer was justified on administrative grounds and not an outcome of vindictive action. The court noted that the petitioner had a history of misconduct and that the employer had shown a generous attitude by compromising earlier defaults. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Transfer - Section 28(1) and Schedule IV Items 3, 9, 10 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The petitioner, a conductor with 17 instances of misconduct, was transferred on administrative grounds. The Industrial Court dismissed his complaint. The High Court held that the transfer was not vindictive and was justified due to the employee's conduct. (Paras 1-7)
B) Industrial Law - Transfer - Administrative Grounds - The court held that an employer has the right to transfer an employee on administrative grounds, and such transfer does not amount to an unfair labour practice unless shown to be mala fide or punitive. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the transfer of the petitioner from Udgir to Latur was an unfair labour practice under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, and whether the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the complaint.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Industrial Court. The transfer was held to be on administrative grounds and not an unfair labour practice.
Law Points
- Transfer on administrative grounds is not an unfair labour practice
- Employee with history of misconduct can be transferred
- Burden of proof on employee to show vindictive transfer
- MRTU & PULP Act Section 28(1) and Schedule IV Items 3
- 9
- 10
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (12) 21
Writ Petition No. 10568 of 2023
Mr. Girish N. Kulkarni (Mardikar) for Petitioner, Mr. A.B. Dhongade for Respondent
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Latur through its Divisional Controller
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Industrial Court dismissing the complaint against transfer.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the transfer order dated 26.10.2019 and the Industrial Court's order dismissing his complaint.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that his transfer from Udgir to Latur was vindictive and amounted to an unfair labour practice.
Previous Decisions
Industrial Court, Latur dismissed Complaint ULP No. 262 of 2018 on 03.02.2023, holding that the transfer was not an unfair labour practice.
Issues
Whether the transfer of the petitioner was an unfair labour practice under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971?
Whether the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the complaint?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Industrial Court misread the ratio of judgments and erred in holding that the transfer was not vindictive.
Respondent argued that the transfer was on administrative grounds due to the petitioner's 17 instances of misconduct and lack of punctuality.
Ratio Decidendi
A transfer of an employee on administrative grounds, especially when the employee has a history of misconduct, does not amount to an unfair labour practice under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The employer has the right to transfer employees for administrative efficiency, and the burden is on the employee to prove that the transfer is vindictive or mala fide.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner is challenging judgment and order dated 03.02.2023, passed by learned Member, Industrial Court, Latur, dismissing the Complaint ULP No. 262 of 2018 which was filed challenging an order of transfer dated 26.10.2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Member of the Industrial Court misread the ratio laid down in the judgments referred in paragraph nos. 11 and 14 of in impugned judgment and order.
It is the submission of the respondent that the transfer of the petitioner is on administrative grounds. The petitioner was not punctual and committed 17 defaults of misconduct on different occasions.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Complaint ULP No. 262 of 2018 before the Industrial Court, Latur on 12.11.2018 challenging the transfer order dated 26.10.2019. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint on 03.02.2023. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court on an unspecified date, which was heard and decided on 11.12.2023.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Section 28(1), Schedule IV Items 3, 9, 10
