RAM SARAN Vs. CHAIRMAN JAMMU RURAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in this case are challenging the order of transfer. It is stated that they had been transferred to the stations which according to the petitioners are hard stations. It is stated that there are other employees, but they have never been transferred to hard areas, and it is the petitioners who have been picked for these hard postings.

(2.) THE petitioner - Ghar Chand has remained posted in Jammu district w. e. f. 23 -05 -1998, other petitioners have also remained posted in Jammu and they have completed three years of their tenure in the home district. This aspect of the matter has been elaborated in para ''2 '' of the objections preferred by, the respondents. It is stated that the issue was considered in light of the directions given by this Court in writ petition SWP No. 1704/02. After examining the entire issue it was found that the earlier order of transfer passed on 11 -05 -2002 does not call any modification and the petitioners had been called upon to join at their new place of postings. This is being challenged inter -alia on the following grounds : - i) that there are other employees who have not been given hard, postings; ii) that the view expressed by the Supreme Court of India in case reported as B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1986 SC 1955, (1986 Lab IC 1806), is attracted; iii) that this is against the transfer policy formulated by the respondents. In particular it is submitted that para ''5 '' of the transfer policy has not been kept in view ; iv) that the petitioners are entitled to protection of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and that even in the matter of transfer this concept has to be observed; v) that in the reply filed by the respondents they have not been given the data regarding the other employees who have remained posted at hard stations. The fact and figures has only been given qua the petitioners; for this reliance is being placed on annexure ''F" with the writ petitions; vi) that the petitioners being the members of Schedule Caste category are being discriminated and this is the reason for their being transferred to hard areas;

(3.) THE issue was considered vis -a -vis the Bank employees by the Supreme Court of India in case reported as Canara Banking Corporation Ltd. v. Vittal, 1963 (2) Labour Law Journal - 354 SC. The policy of transfer contained in the Sastri Award on the question was dealt with and perused. There was a provision that so far as subordinate staff is concerned there should be no transfers ordinarily and if there is any transfer their consent should be obtained. What was said by the Supreme Court of India in the aforementioned case is being reproduced below: - ''In our opinion, there is considerable force in both these contentions. It will be noticed that in making the directions as regards the transfer of workmen the Sastri award drew a distinction between workmen belonging to the subordinate staff and others, As regards members of the subordinate staff", the direction was to the effect that there should be no transfers ordinarily and there was absolute prohibition against transfers, beyond the language area of the persons concerned. The words used for the purpose are ''......If there are any transfers at all, they should not be beyond the language area of the person so transferred '' As regards these ''workman the award did not say that '' as far as possible transfers should not be beyond the language area of the person so transferred." It is easy to see that here the prohibition was absolute, when they go on to consider the case of workman not belonging to the subordinate staff, the members of the tribunal however, use markedly different language and preface the direction with the words ''there should be no transfer out side the State or the language area in which he is serving except of course, with his consent '' by the words ''as far as possible. ''It is not possible to consider this direction as amounting to absolute prohibition words were deliberately used to leave it to the banks to decide on a consideration of the necessities of its business interests whether a transfer of a workman not belonging to the subordinate staff outside State or the language area in which he had been serving could be avoided or not, and directing that where possible it should be avoided. We are satisfied the Labour Court was in error in holding that transfers outside the State or the language area can be made only with the consent of the employees. What the Clause means is that with consent such transfers can of course be made, otherwise, they should be avoided as far as possible."