Lal Mohan Mandal vs M/s Muva Industries Pvt. Ltd.

In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case has been taken up through Video Conferencing. Concerned lawyers have no objection with

regard to the proceeding, which has been held through Video Conferencing today at 10:30 A.M. onwards. They have no complaint in respect to the

audio and video clarity and quality.

Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 03.12.2013 passed in M.W. Case No. 02/2013 by the learned

Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Deoghar.

Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the President of Majdur Union, M/s MUVA Industries Pvt. Ltd.,

registered under Trade Union Act, 1926 by the Registrar of Labour Union, Jharkand through Registration Number 187/2012 and he is employed in the

factory situated at Jagdishpur, Deoghar. As the respondent has not paid the remuneration to his labourer as per notified rate, fixed by the State

Government, the Union has represented before the respondent regarding the payment of wages at the rate of minimum Wages Act and also with

other grievances of the labourers, but no action has been taken by the respondents and as such, the Union had filed a case before learned Labour

Court, Deoghar being M.W. Case No.02/2013. However, during the pendency of the said case, the petitioner has been transferred to Stone Crusher

Unit far away from his village and two other labourers were termined from service. Aggrieved by the same, Union has filed a petition on 29.08.2013

before the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Deoghar for staying the transfer order of the petitioner and reinstatement of aforesaid labourers,

but vide order dated 03.12.2013, learned Court below has rejected the same and as such, this application has been preferred by the petitioner.

Mr. Niranjan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, assailing the impugned order on the ground that learned court below has not

considered the provision of sub Section 4 (A) of Section 20 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which has been violated by the respondent-management as

the Management has transferred the petitioner and retrenched other two skilled labourers during the pendency of M.W. Case No. 02/2013. He further

submits that the learned Court below has wrongly interpreted the aforesaid section of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 as during the pendency of the

aforesaid case, petitioner cannot be transferred to another place. On such grounds, learned counsel prays for quashing of the impugned order dated

03.12.2013.

Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and

submits that there is no violation of sub Section 4 (A) of Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The petitioner has been transferred on account

of administrative exigencies from the Sleeper Division to the Crusher Division, but ever after reminder, the petitioner did not join the Crusher Division,

which is only at a distance of 20 kilometer from the Sleeper Division. He further submits that in view of Clause 5 of the Certified Standing Orders, an

employee can be transferred from one unit to another Unit and as such, the transfer was neither punitive nor it was on account of trade union

activities.

Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that the petitioner has

approached the learned court below in M.W. Case02/2013 and during the pendency of the said case, he was transferred to other Unit/place, whereas

two other co-employees have been retrenched from services. Learned court below has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that

transfer matter cannot be entertained in the case registered under Minimum Wages Act, 1948. It is settled principle of law that that transfer is an

incidence of service and an employee has no right to stay at a particular place indefinitely. The petitioner has grievance that sub Section 4-A of

Section 20 of M.W. Act has not been taken into consideration in right perspective. Under such circumstances, it is necessary to examine sub Section

4-A of Section 20 of Minimum Wages Act, which reads as under:

(Sub Section 4 A of Section 20 of Minimum Wages Act ) ‘no employer shall, during the pendency of any proceedings arising out of any claim case,

take any action against any employee concerned in such claim case:-’

(a) By altering to the prejudice of such employee, the conditions of service applicable to him immediately before the commencement of such

proceedings, and

(b) by discharging, terminating the services in any manner or punishing whether by dismissal or other wise of such workers, save with express

permission in writing of the Authority before whom the proceeding is pending.

The petitioner has challenged his transfer order under Minimum Wages Act before the learned court below, which do not provide any remedy for

the same as remedy is provided under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. Even if the act of punishment is illegal, same has to be challenged

before an appropriate forum. Admittedly, in a transfer matter, one has to prove prejudice and the order to be punitive in nature as well as against the

Statutory Provisions. In the instant case, the order of transfer is neither punitive nor any prejudice has been done to the petitioner and he has been

transferred only 20 kilometers away from his original place of posting. Admittedly, the order of transfer is not on account of trade union activities as

alleged by the petitioner. The High Court as well as Hon’ble Apex Court have clearly held that transfer is a normal incident of service and it

cannot be treated or termed to be prejudice to an employee the conditions of service applicable to him.

This Court is in full agreement with the view expressed by the learned Court below. In view of foregoing discussion, it can be comfortably said that

there is no violation of sub Section 4-A of Section 20 of Minimum Wages Act as alleged by the petitioner and there is no illegality or infirmity in the

impugned order. There is no merit in the instant case.

Resultantly, writ petition stands dismissed.