Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Priya Fulchand Gaikwad, was employed as a Class IV employee (Conductor) with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC). By order dated 26.10.2019, she was transferred from Osmanabad to Paranda within the same division. She challenged this transfer by filing Complaint ULP No. 195 of 2019 before the Industrial Court, Latur, under Section 28(1) and Items 3, 9, and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint on 03.04.2023, leading to the present writ petition. The petitioner argued that the transfer was punitive and violated Circular No. 2 of 2017 and Rules of 2014, as she had already been penalized for earlier defaults and a departmental enquiry was pending for a similar charge. The respondent contended that the transfer was on administrative grounds due to the petitioner's history of misconduct, including 41 defaults, and that the transfer was not a penalty. The High Court held that the transfer was an incident of service and not an unfair labour practice. The court observed that the petitioner had a history of misconduct, including defaults in collecting fare and issuing tickets, and that the transfer was made on administrative grounds to ensure efficiency. The court found no mala fides or victimization, and upheld the Industrial Court's decision. The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Transfer - Sections 28(1), Item 3, 9, 10 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The petitioner, a Class IV employee (Conductor) of MSRTC, challenged her transfer order dated 26.10.2019 as an unfair labour practice. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint. The High Court held that the transfer was on administrative grounds due to the petitioner's history of misconduct and defaults, and not a penalty. The court found no mala fides or victimization, and upheld the transfer as an incident of service. (Paras 1-14) B) Industrial Law - Transfer - Administrative Grounds - Circular No. 2 of 2017 and Rules of 2014 - The petitioner argued that the transfer violated Circular No. 2 of 2017 and Rules of 2014. The court observed that the circular and rules are directory and not mandatory, and the employer has the right to transfer employees on administrative grounds. The court noted that the petitioner had 41 defaults of misconduct, and the transfer was not punitive. (Paras 6-14) C) Industrial Law - Burden of Proof - Unfair Labour Practice - The court held that the burden lies on the employee to prove that the transfer is mala fide or amounts to victimization. The petitioner failed to discharge this burden. The Industrial Court's finding that the transfer was not vindictive was upheld. (Paras 8-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the transfer of the petitioner from Osmanabad to Paranda amounts to an unfair labour practice under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, and whether the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the complaint.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order. The rule was discharged. The court held that the transfer was on administrative grounds and not an unfair labour practice.
Law Points
- Transfer is an incident of service
- not a penalty unless imposed as punishment for misconduct
- Administrative transfer not amounting to unfair labour practice
- Burden of proof on employee to show mala fides or victimization
- Circulars and rules regarding transfer are directory
- not mandatory
