AJKAL PUBLISHERS LTD Vs. HIMANGSHU HALDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal impugning an order of injunction dt. 30th September, 1991 as passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, 12th Bench, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1320 of 1991 whereby the learned trial judge restrained the defendant from giving effect to an impugned order of transfer: to the plaintiff to Madras City as a senior Reporter and further restrained the defendant from interfering with the service of the plaintiff as a Sub-editor in the defendant's Calcutta Office during the pendency of the suit.

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent, Himangshu Haldar was appointed as a sub-editor in the Editorial Department of "aajkal "a newspaper establishment with effect from April 1, 1987 on terms inter alia that his service will be transferable to any other Section of the Editorial Department of the company at any time. On August 7, 1991 the appellant newspaper establishment "aajkal" served on him an order of transfer on promotion to the Reporting department for the post of Senior Repeater with effect from 1st of September, 1991 to Madras City obviously on a higher scale of pay including out station allowance of Rs. 1000/- per month and House Rent Allowance at the rate of rs. 1400/- per month which would be paid in addition to his pay and allowance as a Senior Reporter. It is the contention of the plaintiff-respondent that there is no provision of transfer of the plaintiff from one Section to another or from one post to another within the frame work of the service conditions of defendant appellant company and that the plaintiff as a permanent workman and as terms and conditions of employment are inter alia governed by the industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and the Rules framed there under having the force of law. It was further contended by the plaintiff-respondent in his plaint that the defendant company did not frame any standing order of its own and as such the Model Standing Order under the industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 will be applicable to this case. He contended further that since the gave up the membership of the workmen's Union, the decision of the management to effect transfer was imposed on him as a malafide action. In any view the defendant company had no right to transfer him without his consent. He prayed inter alia for a declaration that the impugned order of transfer was arbitrary, illegal and malafide and without jurisdiction and not binding on him and he sought a further declaration to the effect that his appointment being substantively as that of a Sub-editor of the defendant company he cannot be transferred with purported or pretended promotion to a non-existing post of Senior Reporter outside the cadre with altogether a different function to discharge or perform in Madras City from where the defendant company do not publish or print any additional or supplementary version of daily "aajkal" newspaper and his promotional channel warranted promotion to the next higher post, namely senior Sub-editor. He also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant to give effect to the impugned order of transfer on promotion dt. 7th of August, 1991 and sought an injunction restraining the defendant to interfere with his service as Sub-editor by virtue of the letter of appointment dt. March 30, 1987.

(3.) THE Defendant -appellant Ajkall Publishers Ltd. and its Directors, Shri asoke Das Gupta contended in the court below that since the plaintiff sought a specific performance of his contract of service and according to his own case was governed by the industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 as a working journalist, his remedy if any, lay before the appropriate forum under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and not before the Civil Court. It was further contended on behalf of the defendant company and its Director in the trial court that the Plaintiff was liable to be transferred from one job to another or from one Section or department to another in the interest of production or efficiency of the establishment, provided such a transfer did not adversely affect his total emoluments or the basic condition of the service as provided in rule 24 of the Model Standing Orders framed under the Bengal Industrial employment (Standing Rules) 1946. That apart the defendant-appellant contended in the court below that he was not entitled to any relief in the Civil court and no injunction order would be passed in his favour in that suit itself. No case of balance of convenience or inconvenience was made out by the plaintiff in his pleadings if he was to go on transfer to Madras City, far less the question of irreparable loss and injury.