AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.—The petitioner who is a last grade employee in the service of the respondent Company, is challenging the
correctness and sustainability of Ext. P10 order of suspension imposed as a punishment, in respect of the alleged misconduct, which is stated as
proved. During the pendency of the above writ petition, the petitioner was permitted to report for duty at the cite of respondent company at
Lucknow, as per Ext. P12 produced along with I.A. No. 12525/2012. The transfer was intercepted as per interim order dated 19.09.2012,
ordering the respondents to maintain ''status quo'', which was being extended as per the relevant orders. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the suspension itself is not sustainable either on facts or in law and that the petitioner is innocent of the offence alleged against him. It is
only to harass the petitioner further, for having filed the present writ petition that, he has been caused to be transferred from Palakad to Lucknow
vide Ext. P12.
The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Company submits with reference to the contents of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
respondents 1 to 4 that, the misconduct committed by the petitioner was duly enquired into, particularly in respect of the forgery of signature of
some other workers by the petitioner and also as to sending of letter to the Ministry and it was only on arriving at a finding on guilt as discernible
from Ext. R1(a) enquiry report, that the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty as per Ext. P10, which is not assailable under any circumstance.
The Learned Counsel further submits with reference to the grievance of ''transfer'' projected in the I.A. that, Ext. P12 is not a transfer as such, and
that the petitioner has been caused to report for work at Lucknow as part of the organizational interest in connection with the project work therein.
With reference to the memo dated 8.10.2012, filed on behalf of the respondents, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner has
not been subjected to any discriminatory treatment and that, all other similar workers have also been sent to different projects, by turn, so as to
meet the exigency of service and that the posting ordered as per Ext. P12 is only for a period of two months, after which the petitioner will be
brought back to the Company''s Unit at Palakad and will continue there on the rolls of Palakad Unit. The Learned Counsel further submits that, the
temporary shifting is in connection with the Socio-Economic Caste Census Project (SECC) and that the works in all other states are over.
Reference is also made to copies of different orders produced as Annexure B, C and D, deputing similar workers to Lucknow and such other
places in connection with the project and all such workers have been brought back to the unit at Palakad. It is also stated that the respondents do
not have any plant or Unit in Lucknow.
After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the grievance projected by the petitioner with regard to the alleged transfer to Lucknow unit is
not with much merits, more so when, it is only a project assignment for two months. Further, the assertion made from the part of the respondent
that, the petitioner will be brought back after two months and will continue in the rolls of the unit at palakad, is sufficient enough to protect his
interest. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner has not caused the writ petition to be amended, by challenging Ext. P12 produced along with
the I.A. No. 12525/2012 and the challenge in the writ petition stands confined only to Ext. P10. With regard to the challenge against the
punishment imposed vide Ext. P10, it remains a fact that, the petitioner happens to be a ''workman'' as defined u/s 2(''s'') of the I.D. Act. If the
petitioner is aggrieved of the action taken by the respondent, it is for the petitioner to raise an ''industrial dispute'', in tune with the relevant
provisions of I.D. Act and get it referred to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, for adjudication. This Court finds that, the
petitioner is not justified in approaching this Court directly by invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226.
In the said circumstance, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed.