AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.H. Kantharia, J.—The petitioner-union has in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenged the judgment and order passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Kolhapur on March 27, 1985 in complaint (ULP) No. 12 of 1984.
The petitioner-union had filed the complaint of unfair labour practice against the first respondent-Sakhar Karkhana in the Industrial Court at Kolhapur u/s 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ''the MRTU & PULP Act'') covered by item Nos. 3 and 10 of Schedule IV of the said Act on the allegations that the first respondent-Sakhar Karkhana which is a sugar industry was manufacturing sugar from the year 1963-64 and initially the crushing capacity was 1250 metric tonnes per day which was increased to about 3000 metric tonnes per day and similarly the sugarcane area was increased from 5 to 6 thousand acres to 12 to 13 thousand acres and the section (gats) had increased from 9 to 12, but the 12 fieldmen represented by the petitioner union were ordered to be transferred from agricultural section to accounts of Rs. 150/- per month had also been stopped. Thus, the transfers of the 12 workmen was an act of unfair labour practice covered by items 3 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, alleged the petitioner-union.
The complaint was resisted by the first respondent - Sakhar Karkhana. They admitted that the crushing capacity and the area of cultivation had increased as contended by petitioner-union. It was further admitted that the 12 fieldmen represented by the petitioner-union were also transferred from agricultural section to the accounts section. But according to them, the transfers were not malafide inasmuch as there was no change in the work or service condition of the 12 fieldmen and that earlier they were doing the clerical work and were required to do again the clerical work in the accounts section. As regards loss of an amount of Rs. 150/- by the 12 fieldmen, it was contended by the Sakhar Karkhana that that was not a service condition but the amount was paid to them as petrol allowance as they were doing some touring in the course of the discharge of their duties. About the crucial point of transfer it was the case of the Sakhar Karkhana that the 12 concerned fieldmen were found surplus in the agricultural department and instead of retrenching them, the Sakhar Karkhana transferred them to accounts section and thus there was no malafide act on their part in transferring the 12 concerned fieldmen.
At the trial, the petitioner-union examined one of the concerned fieldmen by name Maruti Patil and on behalf of the Sakhar Karkhana, the Labour and Welfare Officer S. V. Patil. On appreciation of the evidence thus adduced before him, the learned Member of the Industrial Court to the conclusion that the transfer of the 12 fieldmen was not malafide and on the contrary the same was bonafide and in the interest of the 12 fieldmen who would have been otherwise retrenched if they were not transferred. He accordingly by his impugned judgment and order dismissed the complaint of the petitioner-union.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner-union invoked the supervisory writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution by filing the present writ petition.
Now, the record produced before me shows that the facts stated as above are not very much in dispute. However, two main contentions were raised before me in support of the writ petition by Miss Sarnaik, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-union. The first contention of the learned counsel is that it was on account of the political rivalry that the 12 fieldmen came to be transferred. She submitted that the 12 fieldmen were politically opposed to the then Directors who were in power of the Sakhar Karkhana and were, therefore, transferred from one department to another. In this connection, there is no evidence on the record except the bare word of Maruti Patil who was examined in the trial court as the witness of the petitioner-union. And I find no substance in the argument of Miss Sarnaik that on account of the political rivalry the 12 concerned fieldmen were transferred because it can be seen from para 14 of the impugned judgment that the new Directors had taken charge about a year after the transfers had taken place and out of the 12 directors only four of the then party in power were re-elected. In other words, the party that was in opposition at the time of transfers came into power after the transfers were effected. The learned Member of the Industrial Court was right in his argument, in para of 14 of his judgment, that had there been political rivalry, as alleged by the petitioner-union, the present party in power would have accepted the said contention of the 12 fieldmen in whose favour most of the directors were now and they would have re-transferred the 12 fieldmen from the transferred post to their original post on the ground that they were transferred malafide by their political rivals. In para 14 of this writ petition it is contended by the petitioner-union that the newly elected Chairman belonged to Peasants and Workers'' Party, a party avowedly wedded to the cause of labour and, therefore, the petitioner-union tried to see if the present dispute could be settled amicably but in vain. This goes to show that there was no substance in the contention of the petitioner-union that the concerned fieldmen were transferred on account of the political rivalry.
Another contention of Miss Sarnaik is that account of the transfers the 12 concerned fieldmen lost the petrol allowances of Rs. 150/- which they were getting per month. I find no substance in this argument also because the 12 concerned employees were getting petrol allowance of Rs. 150/- per month as they were required to do some kind of touring during the course of their discharge of duties and now that they are working in the accounts section, they are not required to do any touring and, therefore, there was no necessity of giving them petrol allowance of Rs. 150/- per month. It has been admitted by Maruti Patil, examined on behalf of the petitioner-union that whenever they were on leave, they did not get the petrol allowance. In other words, it was only when they did touring that the petrol allowance was paid to them which was, as a mater of fact, not one of the service conditions.
In the passing Miss Sarnaik also urged that the nature of work of the 12 employees was changed on account of the transfers. I once again find no substance in her argument because after all the fieldmen were working as clerks and they were transferred as Clerks and merely because the transfer was from agricultural department to accounts department it cannot be said that there was change in the nature of work of the clerks. Miss Sarnaik also urged that on account of the transfers the promotion chances of the 12 concerned fieldsmen were adversely affected. This argument is also meritless inasmuch as promotion is not a matter of right.
Then, it is to be noted that the unfair labour practice complaint was filed by the petitioner-union under item 3 to 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. Now, it would be an unfair labour practice on the part of an employer to indulge in an act of force or violence as per item 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The facts disclose in the pleadings of the petitioner-union do not show that the first respondent-Sakhar Karkhana had indulged in any act of force or violence. Therefore, item 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act has no application to the facts of the case. As regards item 3 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, it would be an unfair labour practice on the part of an employer to transfer an employee malafide from one place to another, under the guise of following management policy. Admittedly, the employees represented by the petitioner-union here were not transferred from one place to another but merely from one department to another at the same place and, therefore, even in the facts as they are, are admitted it would not amount to unfair labour practice on the part of the first respondent-Sakhar Karkhana covered by item 3 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.
In the premises aforesaid, there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned member of the Industrial Court, Kolhapur. The findings arrived at by him and the decision given cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed as perverse and there is no need, therefore, to interfere with the same by this Court while exercising supervisory writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
In the result, the writ petition fails and the same stands rejected. Rule is accordingly discharged but with no order as to costs.