Government Of India Press Worker’s Association, Nilokheri, District Karnal And Another vs Union Of India And Others

Krishna Murari, J

Aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2018 passed by Chandigarh Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the application for grant of

interim relief, petitioners have approached this court invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner

No.1 claims to be association of workers of Government of India press situated in Nilokheri, District Karnal and petitioner No.2 is an employee of said

press working as binder.

Facts giving rise to present dispute, in brief, can be summarised as under.

There was a Government press situated in Nilokheri, District Karnal. Considering the fact that the Government presses situated throughout the

country were using obsolete technology and, thus, for rationalisation and modernisatio n of such Government of India presses the Union Cabinet took a

decision for merger of seventeen such Government presses situated throughout the country , which were using obsolete technology , into five and

modernise them. In respect of the Government of India press situated at Nilokheri, it was decided that same shall stand merged with the Government

of India Press, Mayapuri, Ring Road, New Delhi, and the services of the employees shall stand transferred to the said press. The petitioners made a

representation requesting for redeploying them in the offices of the Central Government situated in surrounding areas of Nilokheri and vide order

dated 02.07.2018 their representation was rejected. The applicants moved Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal by making

original application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act seeking quashing of the order dated 02.07.2018. Challenge was also made to

the policy of the Central Government dated 20.09.2017 whereunder merger was directed. An application seeking interim relief was also made which

has been rejected vide the order impugned in this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the decision of the Cabinet dated 20.09.2017 in respect of the Government of India press situated at

Mysore was challenged before the Karnataka High Court by means of Writ Petition No.5594 0 of 2017 wherein interim relief was granted and the

respondents therein were directed not to relieve the members of the petitioner -association. Similar was the position in respect of press situated in

Himachal Pradesh where the High Court of Himachal Pradesh vide order dated 20.12.2017 has stayed the effect and operation of the order.

Reference has also been made to the similar orders passed by the High Courts of Calcutta and Kerala. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken

us through the orders passed by different High Courts annexed along with the petition. However, a perusal of the impugned order goes to show that

the prayer made by the petitioners for grant of interim relief before the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal has been rejected mainly on the ground that

Government of India Press, Nilokheri, already stands transferred to press at Mayapuri, Delhi and since Nilokheri Press stands closed retention of staff

would not be productive. The Tribunal has also held that in the facts and circumstances, balance of convenience does not lie in favour of applicants

and, in view of the fact that entire work stands transferred, applicants do not have any prima facie case either. It has further come to the conclusion

that no irreparable loss would be caused to the petitioners-applicants inasmuch as the OA is still pending adjudication on merits and if action of the

respondents is found to be illegal and set aside, status-quo ante can always be restored.

We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

Apart from the facts noted by the Tribunal the three ingredients necessary for grant of an interim injunction, namely, prima facie case, balance of

convenience and irreparable loss being against the petitioners-applicants, the decision to close down the obsolete press and to merge the same along

with its employees with a modern printing press is a policy decision in which there is very little scope for interference much less at an interim stage.

In our considered opinion, the facts and circumstances which led the other High Courts to pass interim directions were entirely different inasmuch

as there is nothing on record to indicate that in those cases the shifting and merger was complete as in the case in hand. Thus, no parity can be drawn

with the interim orders in those matters.

In the case in hand, admittedly, the entire press at Nilokheri stands transferred to press at Mayapuri, Delhi, and the same is closed. With no work

available here an interim order as claimed by the petitioners-applicants is not liable to be granted because their continuance at Nilokheri is of no avail.

Further, insofar as the relief of absorbing the employees of the petitioner-association in other Government organisations situated nearby Nilokheri is

concerned, same can only be granted by way of a final relief which is still pending adjudication before the Administrative Tribunal.

In the above facts and discussion, no illegality is reflected from the impugned order passed by the Tribunal rejecting the application for interim

relief and the same does not warrant any interference by us while exercising powers conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Petition accordingly fails and stands dismissed.