BHARAT ELECTRONICS LTD. Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the instant intra Court appeal is to the order dtd. 9/11/2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. Challenge is also to the order dtd. 20/12/2024, whereby the review application filed by the appellant was also dismissed.

(2.) Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant had sought quashing of the award dtd. 3/7/2017 (Annexure P-20 with the writ petition), passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court2, Chandigarh (for short 'the Labour Court'), whereby while answering the reference in favour of the workmen, their transfer from Panchkula to other units was held not to be fair, correct and legal.

(3.) The facts of the case are that the appellant (Bharat Electronics Limited) (hereinafter referred to as 'the BEL'), which is a Government of India enterprise, issued a transfer order dtd. 26/6/2013 transferring 15 employees from Panchkula to Ghaziabad, Chennai, Machlipatnam and Navi Mumbai. The Bharat Electronics Wokers' Union, Panchkula (respondent No.2) raised a dispute against the said transfer and the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, vide order dtd. 22/10/2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court at Chandigarh. The said reference was challenged by way of CWP-111-2014, which was dismissed on 9/1/2014, but LPA-590-2014 against the said order was partly allowed on 16/9/2015 holding the reference contrary to the standing orders and the said reference order was set aside with liberty to the appropriate Government to take a fresh decision in accordance with law. Thereafter, Government of India, through Ministry of Labour made another reference. Pursuant to the revised reference, the appellant-Management relieved the transferees and directed them to join at their respective places of posting. The challenge to the revised reference by respondent No.2-Union, remained unsuccessful uptil the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the claim statement before the Labour Court, filed on behalf of 15 workmen, it was pleaded that since the inception of the Panchkula unit of the appellant-Management, no workman was transferred to outside Panchkula without obtaining his willingness and as per the prevailing practice. The transfer order was stated to be mala fide. It was also pleaded that the working conditions of each unit were different; that there were no inter unit transfer Rules for transferring the non-executive employees. The issue regarding knowledge of the local language was also raised. The said claim of the Union/workmen was contested by the appellantManagement, wherein it was asserted that the condition of transfer was clearly mentioned in the certified standing orders of the Panchkula Unit as also in the appointment letters of the transferred workmen. It was further asserted that in view of the settlement dtd. 19/5/2010, the Union was estopped from challenging the transfer orders. It was further asserted that Clause 1.3 of the settlement provided for redeployment of manpower wherever required and that a meeting of the joint standing Committee was held on 13/5/2013 at Bangalore, wherein the representatives of the Union, including respondent No.2-Union, had participated and various issues were discussed, including the one relating to Panchkula Unit. It was further the case of the appellant-Management that transfer proposal dtd. 17/6/2013 was mooted keeping in view the workload, order book position and need of optimization of manpower and deployment in various units. It was further the case of the appellant-Management that transfer was an incidence of service and did not amount to change in the conditions of service and the condition of transfer had specifically been provided in the appointment letter. The Labour Court, after hearing the rival contention of the parties and taking into consideration the material on record, answered the reference in favour of the workmen, which led to the filing of the writ petition by the appellant-Management, that was dismissed by the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.