ANANG PAL Vs. HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS were appointed as T -mates on work charge basis some time in the years 1980 and 1981 in the Thermal Plant, Faridabad which is a unit of the Haryana State Electricity Board (for short the Board). According to the Board, they were being appointed for a fixed period from time to time in connection with the pre operational testing work of the third unit of the Thermal Plaint, which was commissioned in the year 1981 -82 and on completion of the testing work their contract of employment came to an end on August 31, 1982 which was not renewed thereafter. This termination of employment gave rise to some industrial disputes which were raised by each of the petitioners individually Under Section 2 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act). The dispute were referred for adjudication under Sub -section (1) of Section 10 of the Act to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Faridabad. Since the issues arising in the cases were the same, all the references were consolidated. The Labour Court as per its award dated November 16, 1987 came to the conclusion that their services were wrongly terminated inasmuch as the Board did not comply with the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Act. The management was directed to reinstate them with continuity of service. The Board challenged the aforesaid award by filing Civil Writ Petitions in this Court which were dismissed on July 6, 1955. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petitions the petitioners were reinstated in terms of the aforesaid award and thereafter transferred from the office of Executive Engineer, Thermal Plant, Faridabad to the office of Superintending Engineer (OP) Circle, Faridabad. They were subjected to repeated transfers first from one office to the other within the town of Faridabad and subsequently all the petitioners have been transferred from the office of Executive Engineer (P and S) Thermal, Faridabad to the office of Superintending Engineer (OP) Circle, Narnaul. It is this order of transfer that has been challenged by the petitioners in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. While admitting the writ petition, the Motion Bench stayed operation of the impugned order of transfer with the result that the petitioners continued working at their old station of posting.

(2.) WHILE challenging the impugned order of transfer, Mrs. Abha Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Board had no power to transfer any of the petitioners who are workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Employment (Standing) Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the 1946 Act). The argument is that the third unit of the Thermal Plant where the petitioners were employed is an 'industrial establishment' within the meaning of 1946 Act and thus governed by the Model Standing Orders framed by the State Government which operate in the absence of any certified standing orders by the Board and that the Model Standing Orders do not give any power to the Board to transfer its workmen from one office to another or from one station to another.

(3.) FROM the rival contentions advanced by counsel for the parties, the question that arises for determination is whether the Board has the power to transfer its workman who are employed in an industrial establishment within the meaning of 1946 Act.