ARIFA NANUMAN Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit.

(2.) These are two writ petitions preferred by Mrs.Arif'a Nauman and Ms.Chitra Srivastava, who have been working as Steno-Typists in the organization of respondent No. 3, namely, Hamdard (Waqf) Laboratories, which was registered as a Waqf with the Sunni Majlis-e-Auqaf, Delhi under the Delhi Muslims Waqf Act, 1943 and later in the year 1964 with the Delhi Waqf Board i.e. the respondent No. 2 under the Waqf Act, 1954. Vide an order dated 1.11.2003 the respondent No. 3, the employer of the petitioners, transferred the petitioners from Delhi to Aurangabad and Bhopal respectively. The prayer in the writ petition is for a mandamus to direct the respondent No. 3 not to give effect to the orders dated 1.11.2003.

(3.) The principal ground to challenge the order is malafides. It is contended that the husband of the petitioner (Arifa Nauman) is an ex employee of respondent No. 3 and is presently the Joint Secretary of the Hamdard Employees and Workers' Union and he in such capacity had obtained an order in WP(C) 6978/1999 from this court directing the parties therein who were unions to establish before the respondent No. 3 their majority and to communicate the grievance of the aggrieved parties to the Assistant Labour Commissioner in a time-bound manner and that the respondent No. 3 as well as the Assistant Labour Commissioner failed to comply with the directions of this Court which led to filing of a contempt petition, bearing No. 209/2002 wherein again the respondent No. 3 was directed to negotiate with the majority union not later than 15 days from the date of the said order. It is alleged that respondent No. 3 has not yet complied with that order. Further it is alleged that respondent No. 3 with the connivance of respondent No. 2 has been siphoning off large sums of money and the husband of the petitioner (Arifa Nauman) got certain legal notices issued to respondent No. 3. It is alleged that the respondent No. 3 in collusion with respondent No. 2 out of sheer frustration and in order to pressurize the said husband not to follow up the said legal notice issued the transfer order.