P SEKAR Vs. BHEL RANIPET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come to this Court challenging the order of transfer by which he has been posted to Bharat Heavy Electricals, Ltd. , Trichy.

(2.) THE petitioner herein joined the services of the Bharat Heavy Electricals, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as B. H. E. L.), Ranipet, the first respondent herein on 1st December, 1983, as Fitter Grade IV and was promoted from Grade IV to Grade III Fitter. It seems that the petitioner is a sitting executive committee member of the Boiler Auxiliaries Plant Staff Union, a recognised union. The petitioner alleges in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the first respondent management wanted to stifle the protesting voices of the union, in which he is an executive committee member, that it decided to victimise the vanguards of the union and was waiting for an opportunity to victimise the petitioner. It seems that there was an incident in which a gate was closed by which the workmen used to get in and come out of the canteen and to the administrative block. It is also alleged in the affidavit that the said decision was taken without consulting the recognised unions and the workmen very much protested against the said action of the management. The petitioner submits in the affidavit that an order of interim suspension was made on 13th January 1990. It is also alleged in the affidavit that a false allegation has been made in the said order of interim suspension alleging that the petitioner indulged in violent acts. On 29th January 1990 a charge memo was issued to the petitioner which runs as follows : ". . . The following charge has been made against you, and it is necessary that you should have an opportunity of defending yourself against it. On 12th January 1990, you were on duty in A shift (i. e. , 8. 00 hours to 16. 30 hours) you struck work during your shift hours and incited some other employees in production area to strike work during their shift hours. During the forenoon session of the same day, you had prevented a few production executives from carrying out their normal work in the shop floor by concerted action with a few other employees. At about 14. 30 hours on 12th January 1990, when a group of production executives went to shop floor area on their routine round of inspection through the M and S office gate (South-Eastern side near Mazak machine) and when they reached near RM 65 Drilling machine in F-3 bay, you and Sri A. N. Valumani, staff No. 4157605, Fitter-III, Production, sprang at them and blocked their way physically. You restrained them from moving further, called and instigated a group of employees who were gathered near the gangway of F-3 bay to prevent these executives from moving from that area and on your instigation, they surrounded the production executives. You also violently behaved by gesticulations with these executives. Through your gesticulations, you have intimidated and threatened these executives with dire consequences. By mobilising a mob to surround them, you have physically prevented them and forced them to leave the shop floor. At about 15. 15 hours on 12th January 1990, you intimated a coemployee, Shri. K. L. Murthy, Staff No. 2057344, Crane Operator I, while he was doing his duty, and whistled and shouted slogans at him. Showing your chappals you also threatened to beat Shri K. L. Murthy. Further, you had made vulgar signs to him by stripping your pants down. Thus you have behaved indecently. . . " It is stated in the charge memo that the charges come under items (11), (12), read with (56) (2) of the act in Standing Order 57. After an oral enquiry, an order of punishment was passed on 31st March, 1990 against the petitioner reducing him to the post of Fitter Grade IV. On the same day, the impugned order came to be passed transferring him to Trichy B. H. E. L. , from Ranipet. The petitioner alleges in the affidavit that the impugned order of transfer is only by way of punishment, and that it has been done in a vindictive manner. It is further alleged in the affidavit that the impugned order is hit by doctrine of double jeopardy and that it is also in violation of principles of natural justice. It is also alleged that the order of transfer is ex facie illegal and that he has been transferred to Tirchy with mala fide intention. It is further stated that there is no need to transfer the petitioner to Trichy when employees similarly placed like him and who are juniors to him have been retained at Ranipet itself.

(3.) NOTICE of motion has been ordered by me on 5th April, 1990.