Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli, and its health officers, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 28 August 2010 passed by the Industrial Court, Chandrapur. The Industrial Court had allowed an interim application filed by the respondent, Smt. Chandramala w/o Fattu Khobragade, under Section 30(2) of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, staying the operation of a relieving order dated 15 February 2010 pending disposal of her complaint. The respondent was a Health Worker at Health Unit Deulgaon. Due to a new staffing pattern introduced by Government Resolution dated 6 August 2007, 32 posts including the respondent's were abolished. The petitioners issued an absorption order on 30 May 2008, absorbing the respondent at Gumalkonda/Ankisa/Sironcha to continue her service. Subsequently, a relieving order was issued on 15 February 2010. The respondent refused to accept it, so it was sent by post, which she received on 26 June 2010. She then filed Complaint U.L.P. No.26/2010 challenging the relieving order as a transfer under Items 3, 5, and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. In her interim application, she stated that she had not been relieved and that it was a midterm transfer. The Industrial Court granted status quo, which was confirmed by the impugned order. The High Court found the order unsustainable because the respondent had already received the relieving order, and the transfer was due to abolition of post, not an unfair labour practice. The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the Industrial Court's order, and directed the Industrial Court to decide the complaint expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Transfer due to Abolition of Post - Items 3, 5, 9 of Schedule IV of M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 - The respondent employee challenged a relieving order as a transfer, but the order was actually an absorption order due to abolition of her post under a new staffing pattern. The Industrial Court granted interim stay without considering that the employee had not been relieved and that the transfer was not covered under Schedule IV. Held that the Industrial Court's order was unsustainable as it failed to appreciate the nature of the order and the factual position. (Paras 2-5) B) Industrial Law - Interim Relief - Prima Facie Case - Section 30(2) of M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court granted status quo based on the employee's statement that she had not been relieved and that it was a midterm transfer. However, the employee had already received the relieving order by post. The High Court held that the Industrial Court erred in granting interim relief without a proper prima facie case, as the transfer was due to abolition of post and not an unfair labour practice. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in granting interim stay of a transfer order pending complaint under the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, when the transfer was necessitated by abolition of post and the employee had not been relieved at the time of filing the complaint.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 28 August 2010 passed by the Industrial Court, Chandrapur, and directed the Industrial Court to decide the complaint expeditiously. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Transfer due to abolition of post is not an unfair labour practice
- Interim relief cannot be granted without prima facie case
- Industrial Court exceeded jurisdiction under Section 30(2) of MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
