ARIFA NAUMAN Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this review petition, applicant-petitioner Mrs. Arif Nauman seeks review of the judgment and order dated 26.10.2000 by which W.P. (C) No. 7138/2003 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 and the interim protection granted vide judgment dated 26.10.2004 was directed to continue.

(2.) The petitioner who is employed with the respondent No. 3 Hamdard Wakf Laboratories as a stenographer, had challenged in the writ petition the order dated 1.11.2003 transferring her to Aurangabad (Maharashtra). Petitioner, who was working at the head office in Delhi, contended that her transfer thousands of miles away was amala fide one and to victimize her for the active participation in trade union activities of her husband, who was the General Secretary of respondent No. 3's workers union. Petitioner claimed that never before in the history of respondent No. 3, a lady employee had been transferred thousands of miles away from the head office. It was claimed that husband of respondent No. 3 had been illegally dismissed and now the petitioner was sought to be penalized for the crusade of her husband to get justice for workers.

(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, since her job was rendered surplus otherwise and she was liable to be retrenched.