P G PAUL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition by P. G. Paul, Supervisor (Technical), Grade 'A', who was at the relevant time engaged in the Gun Carriage Factory at Jabalpur. He was served with an order of transfer from this factory to another factory at Nagpur. He filed an application before the Labour Court challenging the order of transfer on grounds of mala fides, and also applied for an interim order staying his transfer in the meanwhile. The Labour Court passed an order under section 107 of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960. THIS section authorizes the Industrial Court or a Labour Court to pass such interim orders including a prohibitory order or a stay order as it may consider just and proper. The Labour Court passed the stay order on two grounds. In the first place it was said that the application was based upon an allegation that Shri B. S. Tiwari, Deputy Manager of the Factory at Jabalpur, was annoyed with the applicant and, therefore, the order was mala fide; and the second ground was that the applicant had filed two other cases against the management and he would be prejudiced in prosecuting those cases if he is transferred. On these grounds the Labour Court passed an order staying the transfer order till the final decision of the case. Against that order a revision was filed before the Industrial Court and by its order dated 10 January 1968 the Industrial Court modified the stay order directing the applicant to join duties at Nagpur within ten days from the date of the order and further directing the cases in which the applicant was involved to be decided at a very early date. It was also stated in the order that if the cases were not decided within two months, the petitioner would be retransferred in place of any other employee who was willing to exchange places. Against this order the present petition has been filed.

(2.) THE contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with an interim order passed under section 107 of the said Act by the Labour Court. Learned counsel contended that the revisional powers vested in the Industrial Court under section 66 can only be exercised if the Labour Court had passed a final order in a case, which was not so here, and if the order passed by the Labour Court was without jurisdiction or the Labour Court had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. THE contention is that this was also not the case here.

(3.) WE, therefore, see no force in this petition, and reject the same. Parties will bear their own costs. The outstanding amount of the security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner.