Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Promod Singh Hanuman Singh Parihar, was employed as a Sub-Engineer/Chargeman Grade II in the Generation side of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board. In 1987, the Board invited applications for posts in a newly started Computer Section (EDP Section). The petitioner applied, was selected, underwent 45 days of training, and joined as Assistant Computer Operator/Assistant Programmer at Nagpur w.e.f. 28.07.1988. Subsequently, he and others filed a complaint (ULP No. 324 of 1990) seeking holiday benefits, and the Industrial Court granted an ex parte stay allowing them to enjoy public holidays. Allegedly irked by this, the Board issued an order dated 24.05.1990 repatriating the petitioner to Khaparkheda on Generation side. The petitioner challenged this as an unfair labour practice by filing Complaint (ULPA) No. 469 of 1990 under Section 28 read with items 3, 6, 7 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The Industrial Court granted interim stay, which continued until the final dismissal of the complaint on 02.02.2005. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court heard arguments from both sides. The petitioner argued that the repatriation was punitive and amounted to unfair labour practice, while the respondents contended that the petitioner had no right to continue in the EDP Section and the transfer was a routine administrative decision. The Court analyzed the facts and found that the petitioner was initially appointed in the Generation side and his posting to EDP Section was a temporary arrangement. The repatriation order did not alter his service conditions or cause any loss of pay or status. The Court held that the petitioner had no vested right to remain in the EDP Section and the employer had the discretion to transfer employees. The allegation of victimization was not substantiated. The Court also noted that the interim stay had protected the petitioner for 15 years, which was a significant relief. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the order of the Industrial Court was upheld.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Repatriation/Transfer - Items 3, 6, 7, 9 of Schedule IV, MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - The petitioner, a Sub-Engineer, was selected and trained for a post in the EDP Section but was later repatriated to his original cadre. The Industrial Court dismissed his complaint. The High Court held that the petitioner had no right to continue in the EDP Section and the repatriation was not an unfair labour practice as the employer had the discretion to transfer employees. (Paras 1-10) B) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Victimization - Items 3, 6, 7, 9 of Schedule IV, MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - The petitioner alleged that the repatriation was in retaliation for filing a complaint for holidays. The High Court found no evidence of victimization and noted that the interim stay had continued for 15 years, which itself was a significant relief. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the repatriation of the petitioner from EDP Section to his original cadre on Generation side amounts to an unfair labour practice under items 3, 6, 7 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order of the Industrial Court dated 02.02.2005 dismissing Complaint (ULPA) No. 469 of 1990 is upheld.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- repatriation
- transfer
- MRTU & PULP Act
- Schedule IV items 3
- 6
- 7
- 9
- no vested right to post
- employer's discretion
