CHITRA SRIVASTAVA Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Review Petition, applicant- petitioner Mrs. Chitra Srivastava seeks review of the judgment and order dated 31.08.2004 by which W.P.(C) No.7252/2003 was dismissed holding that there was an efficacious alternate remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the dispute was such that the petitioner be relegated to the same. The impugned order of transfer was stayed for a period of two months to enable the petitioner to avail of the legal remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. Notice in the Review Petition had been issued on 20.09.2004 and the interim protection granted vide judgment dated 31.08.2004 was directed to continue.

(2.) Petitioner, who is employed with respondent No.3 Hamdard Wakf Laboratories as Secretary to the Head, Human Resource Development at the Head Office, had challenged in the writ petition order transferring her to Bhopal. Petitioner, who was working at the Head Office in Delhi, contended that her transfer hundreds of miles away, was a mala fide one. Petitioner is stated to be a mother of two children with a sick husband, who has undergone neurosurgery. Petitioner contended that she was being made a scapegoat simply to show that the transfer of Arifa Nauman, writ petitioner in WP(C).No.7138/2003, was not a solitary case but a routine one by transferring her also. It was urged that Mrs.Arifa Nauman was being victimized on account of trade union activities of her husband, who was Secretary of Workers' Union of respondent No.3. Petitioner in the writ petition had questioned her transfer as a mala fide one and being contrary to the standing orders.

(3.) Respondents had raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition contending that an alternative efficacious remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act was available, which the petitioner had failed to avail. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, had contended that the Tribunal did not have any power to grant stay of the transfer order and the order affected her livelihood and fundamental rights Respondent No.3 on the other hand, had contended that the transfer was not emanating from any malice rather the respondent had only accommodated the petitioner by transferring her to Aurangabad, sjnce her job was rendered surplus otherwise and she was liable to be retrenched.