THE MANAGEMENT OF SRI RANI LAKSHMI GINNING AND WEAVING MILLS (PRIVATE) LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MADRAS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition lies within a very narrow compass. Industrial Dispute No. 101 of 1971 was pending on the file of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, to which the petitioner as well as the second respondent were parties. The Government in G.O.R. No. 71, Labour, dated 11 th January, 1972, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 23rd February, 1972 passed the following Order:

(2.) Mr. O. V. Baluswami, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, put forward two contentions in support of this writ petition. One is that the impugned order' of the Government has been passed at the-instance and on the application of the second respondent herein without notice to the petitioner, and, therefore, that order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The second contention is that the order must give reasons relevant for the transfer directed by it, and in this case the impugned order does not record any reasons, and, therefore, it is not in compliance with the requirements of Section 33-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In my opinion, both these contentions are well-founded.

(3.) As far as the first contention is concerned, once an industrial dispute is validly pending on the file of a Court or Tribunal, it can be transferred by the Government in exercise of its powers under Section 33-B of the Act only on hearing both the parties to the dispute. Simply because one of the parties to the dispute moves the Government for such a transfer, the Government cannot exercise such a power without giving an opportunity to the other party to the dispute to have his say on the application for transfer made by the first party. It may be that the reasons adduced by the party who moved for transfer may not be valid or relevant or may not even be true at all. Whether such reasons in fact exist and whether those reasons have any relevancy for a transfer can be tested only if the other party had notice of the same. Therefore from the very nature of the case, an order for transfer can be made by the Government of the case, at the instance of one of the parties to the dispute only after giving an opportunity to the other party to state its case with reference to the application for transfer. Admittedly, in this case the Government have passed the impugned order without notice to the petitioner herein, and, therefore, the impugned order of the Government cannot be sustained.