GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Grasim Industries Limited has filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by respondents 2 and 3 by which the 4th respondent's transfer from the post of Labour Welfare Officer to the HRD Department was found to be in violation of the provisions contained in Kerala Factories (Welfare Officers) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') and directed that the 4th respondent shall be allowed to continue in service as Labour Welfare Officer from the date of appointment without break with all benefits.

(2.) The petitioner Company appointed the 4th respondent as per Ext.P1 order, on the basis of an interview conducted on 6.2.1996. The order of appointment was issued on 16.2.1996 appointing her in the HRD Department. On appointment, she was to be on training for a period of six months from the date of joining and on completion of the same, she was to be on probation for a period of six months. During the period of training, she was eligible for stipend of Rs.2,000/ - (Rupees Two thousand only) and on completion of training she was eligible for a consolidated pay of Rs.2,500/ - (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) during the period of probation. Among the general conditions of appointment clause 13 (b) provided as follows "your services shall be subject to transfer to any of the departments/divisions of the Company". Thereafter by Ext.P2 the petitioner appointed the 4th respondent designating her as Labour Welfare Officer (on probation) and transferring her to Labour Welfare Department with immediate effect. Clauses 2 and 3 of the order of appointment -Ext.P1, were also modified stating that she would be on probation for a period of one year from 1.3.1996 on consolidated salary of Rs.2,000/ - with eligibility for enhanced salary of Rs.2,500/ - for the next six months in the event of her performance being found satisfied. It was also stated that on completion of probation, she will be subjected to a test and if found suitable she would be confirmed. As per Ext.P3 order dated 7.1.1997 she was confirmed with effect from 1.1.1997 on a consolidated pay of Rs.3,750/ - (Rupees Three thousand seven hundred and fifty only) from 1.1.1997. While issuing Ext.P2 order it was stated that all other conditions of the order of appointment -Ext.P1 would continue. Thereafter by Ext.P4 order dated 19.9.1997, the petitioner informed the 4th respondent that the management had decided to transfer her to HRD Department where she was originally posted. The reason stated was that the petitioner has not received any approval for her appointment from the Directorate of Factories and Boilers and as per the provisions contained in the Rules, the appointment of Welfare Officer has to be got approved by the Directorate of Factories and Boilers.

(3.) The 4th respondent thereupon submitted a representation to the President of the petitioner refusing to accept the transfer and requesting to withdraw the same. She pointed out that after confirming her appointment as Labour Welfare Officer, the transfer effected from the Labour Welfare Department to HRD Department was against natural justice, discriminatory and arbitrary. It was also stated that since the approval was not rejected, there was no reason for transferring her. She filed an appeal before the Inspector (Chief) of Factories and Boilers under section 6(6)(a) of the Rules challenging the order Ext.P4 and praying for directions to allow her to continue in service as Labour Welfare Officer in the Labour Welfare Department. After hearing the petitioner and the 4th respondent, the Director of Factories and Boilers - the appellate authority, passed Ext.P9 order directing that the 4th respondent shall be allowed to continue in service as Labour Welfare Officer from the date of appointment without break along with all benefits.