District Co-Operative Bank Employees Federation-Kerala vs State of Kerala and Others

K. Surendra Mohan, J

The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs.

(i). call for the records leading to Exhibits P4,P5,P6,P9 and P12 transfer orders and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction;.

(ii). issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 4 not to transfer any employee till an elected committee takes over the administration of the bank; and

(iii). grant such other and further reliefs as deemed by this Hon''ble Court fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of his case.

The first petitioner is a registered trade union of the employees of District Co-Operative Banks in the Kerala State. The 2nd petitioner is the Vice President of the 1st petitioner and 3rd petitioner is a Guest Room Boy of the 4th respondent. They are aggrieved by Exts. P4,P5,P6,P9 & P12 orders by which various employees of the 4th respondent have been transferred.

Ext.P4 is dated 23.2.2012 and relates to 52 employees who are transferred to and from the different branches of the 4th respondent bank. Along with Ext.P4, another order dated 1.03.2012 is produced as Ext.P4(6) which relates to certain postings effected on ''work arrangement'' basis. Ext.P5 dated 8.05.2012 is also a proceeding that relates to postings effected on ''work arrangement'' basis. As per the said proceedings, certain persons have been deployed for the purpose of tiding over the difficulty in carrying on the day to day work of certain branches due to paucity of employees. Ext.P6 dated 9.05.2012 is proceedings by which the 3rd petitioner who is a Guest House Room Boy has been transferred on ''work arrangement'' basis temporarily. Ext.P9 is yet another proceedings issued in respect of the 3rd petitioner. Ext.P12 dated 2.06.2012 is a copy of proceedings by which 59 employees are transferred among the various branches of the 4th respondent bank.

According to the counsel for the petitioner, the majority of the employees transferred as per the proceedings referred to above belong to the 1st petitioner trade union. It is pointed out that an Administrator had taken charge of the affairs of the 4th respondent bank pursuant to Ext.P3. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that the transfers have been effected on political considerations, particularly targeting the members of the 1st petitioner union. For the above reason, it is contended that the proceedings under challenge are all vitiated by malafidies and extraneous consideration and liable to be set aside. It is also contended that the transfers are made in violation of the norms applicable, Ext.P14. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned proceedings are all liable to be set aside.

Adv. Sri. C.K.Jayakumar appears for the 4th respondent. The Government Pleader represents respondents 1 to 3.

It is to be noted at the very outset that the petitioners have raised an omnibus challenge against the impugned orders alleging that they are all issued in violation of Ext.P14 transfer norms. It is trite that orders of transfers are not W.P.C. No. 13703 OF 2012 4 amenable to such challenges on the basis of general allegations. It is of course contended that petitioners 2 and 3 have been subjected to transfer. The counsel for the 4th respondent contends that the 2nd petitioner is a person who has served continuously for a long period of time at his present place of posting. I also notice that the 3rd petitioner''s posting is on ''work arrangement'' basis, made temporarily and for the said reason, cannot be characterized as a transfer in its real sense. Every employer has the right to effect such postings in the exigencies of service, on work arrangement basis. It is well settled that it is not open to a trade union to assail orders of general transfer alleging that the transfers are all vitiated. It is worth noticing that none of the persons who have been transferred have raised any objections to the such transfers or challenged their transfers in individual writ petitions filed by them. I have taken note of the dates of each transfer order and notice that the orders were being issued from February 12th onwards. Therefore, if as a matter of fact any prejudice had been caused to anyone, the orders would certainly have been called in question in some proceedings. The absence of any such challenge also is significant. Though malafidies are alleged against the orders of transfer, no material or evidence is on record to support the said allegation.

I do not find any ground to entertain this Writ Petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. Needless to observe that the dismissal of this writ petition is without prejudice to the rights of the individual employees to complain, if any prejudice has been caused to any one of them.