1.0 By way of present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 01.02.2012 transferring the petitioner no.1 from Nandeshwari to Sankheda which is 70 kms away from the original place of posting and transferring the petitioner no.2 to Hotline Bharuch from Nandeshwari which is about 100 kms away. The petitioners also challenged the letter dated 09.01.2012 followed by order dated 01.02.2012 issued by the Personnel Officer of the respondent-Corporate office which will indicate that sanctioned, permanent post is shifted from Nandeshwari to other also station.
2.0 The petitioners are working as Junior Engineer with the respondent authority. According to the petitioner the transfer order is against the tripartite agreement entered into between the government, management and the trade unions at the time of bifurcations of the then Electricity Board. It is also submitted that the impugned orders are illegal, against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and against the existing Rules with regard to redeployment and reduction in manpower;
3.0 Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that this would be reducing the number of posts which is not permissible in law and the same is against the award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal and also there is breach of rules and regulations. He invited attention of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which reads as under:
9A.
Notice of change:- No, employer, who proposes to effect any change in the conditions of service applicable to any workman in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule, shall effect such change.-
(a) without giving to the workmen likely to be affected by such change a notice in the prescribed manner of the nature of the change proposed to be effected ; or
(b) within twenty-one days of giving such notice:
Provided that no notice shall be required for effecting any such change-
(a) where the change is effected in pursuance of any [settlement or award] or [b] where the workmen likely to be affected by the change are persons to whom the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules, Civil Services ( Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Civil Services ( Temporary Service) Rules, Revised Leave Rules, Civil Service Regulations, Civilians in Defence Services ( Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules or the Indian Railway Establishment Code or any other rules or regulations that may be notified in this behalf by the appropriate Government in the Official Gazette, apply.
He therefore submitted that there was violation of rules and regulations.
4.0 The respondent has filed Affidavit in reply wherein in paras 6, 13 and 22 it is stated as under:
"6. It is submitted that the petitioners were working as Junior Engineers at 132KV Nandesari Sub Station under Gotri Transmission Division. It is submitted that there were 5 (Five) posts of Unior Engineer sanctioned at 132KV Nandesari Sub Station since long back, out of which, four posts are for carrying out work of Sub Station in shift duties and one post for general duties for S/S maintenance work etc. At present, 4 (Four) PO-I, Asstt. Operators & Helpers are working in shift duties for operational work at 132kV Nandesari Sub-Station. As per norms of 132kV Sub-Stations, only PO-I & Helpers are working in shift for operational work in GETCO. Looking to the workload of 66kV Sub-Station at Rajpipla, Dediapada, Shivrajpur & Limkheda, the management decided to redeploy/transfer the post of Junior Engineer at 132KV Nandesari and shifted at aforesaid places. The proposal had been sent to the Corporate Office, Vadodara vide letter No.ZOBRH/HR/Staff Set up/11/1676 dated 20.12.2011 with detailed justification for redeploy the post of Junior Engineer of 132KV Nandesari Sub-Station. This is to submit that looking to the present loading and infrastructure of 132kV Nandesari Sub-Station, four post of Junior Engineer (Shift)are required to be shifted to other more needy and important Sub-Stations and remaining operational staff would coup up the entire operation duties. On the other hand some group DE/JE have been highly over burdened due to addition of new bub-Stations and Lines in their adjacent area. The proposal with detailed justification is marked as ANNEXURE-R1 with this reply. It is submitted that because of the said redeployment, overall strength of the Junior Engineers in the establishment of GETCO would not increase or decrease. It is submitted that the entire exercise has been carried out only with a view to cop-up with administrative exigencies and in the interest of the organization, transfer has been effected.
It is submitted that looking to the detailed justification of proposal & administrative requirement, Corporate Office, Vadodara has shifted existing 4 nos. of sanctioned post of Junior Engineer (Shift) of 132kV Nandesari Sub-Station to various 66kV Sub- Stations as Group JE i.e. one at 66kV Limkheda S/S, Second is 66kV Rajpipla S/S, third is 66 kV Dediapada S/S & fourth is at 66 kV Shivrajpur S/S.
*** *** *** 13.0 It is submitted that there is no change in service condition detrimental to the present condition of the employees & hence there is no violation of tri-party agreement. It is submitted that reliance placed by the petitioners on the tri-partite agreement is also misconceived inasmuch as the transfer of the petitioners have no nexus with regard to re-organization and rationalization of the industry, which took place in the year 2005 pursuant to the newly enacted Gujarat Electricity Industry (Re-organization and Regulation)Act, 2003. It is submitted that the tri-partite agreement was one time measure and the petitioners cannot rely upon the said agreement for the times to come, i.e. after nine years. It is submitted that the present transfer orders came to be effected in view of the fact that now there is no workload available at 132 KV Nadesarri Sub Station whereas at other places, there is sufficient work, which can be offered to the petitioners. Even otherwise also, as provided in the tripartite agreement, in fact, union itself had agreed that any employee rendered surplus through process of appropriate rationalization through adequate training shall be re-deployed after due formalities. It is submitted that in fact with more or less similar grievances the GEB Engineers Association raised Reference (IT) No.205 of 2004 wherein the said Association raised demand that the GEB shall not cancel post of Junior/Deputy Engineer or reduce the same and shall not give more work to the present engineers and shall not give more workload than the present one. The demand was also raised that without following legal procedure or entering into settlement, GEB shall not decrease or increase the strength of Junior/Deputy Engineer. In the said Reference, interim relief was prayed by the GEB Engineers Association and below Exh.159 order, the learned Industrial Tribunal has refused interim relief. A copy of the said order is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-R3 with this reply. It is submitted that to the best of the knowledge of the respondents, the said order has not been challenged before this Hon'ble Court.
22. It is required to be noted that there is no question of reduction and/or increase in the post of Junior Engineers in the set-up of GETCO. It is also pertinent to note that seniority list is maintained by the Corporate Office of GETCO and it is not the case of any increase or reduction in number of persons employed or to be employed in the respondent no.3. The service conditions of the petitioners are not affected in any manner and the service conditions of the petitioners have remained in tact inclusive of seniority and/or pay-scale. Here is a case wherein there is no work in one Sub-station and therefore, the concerned Junior Engineers are being transferred to other needy Sub-Stations, where there is availability of work. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no question of violation of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is submitted that the petitioners who are Junior Engineers cannot be termed as workman within the meaning of Section 2S of the Industrial Disputes Act. They have to perform technical work. It is not true and correct that there is reduction of the posts and/or change of workload of the Junior Engineers or that consequently the workload will fall on Class III. The petitioners have failed to point out violation of any rules and regulations of GETCO while redeploying/transferring the petitioners. It is submitted that the order impugned in the petition has already been executed and the petitioners have already been relieved from their present posting with effect from 01.02.2012."
6.0 In view of the above aspect it cannot be said that there is violation of tripartite agreement nor any reduction in the posts. The transfers are effected due to administrative exigency. Even the service conditions of the petitioner are not affected.
7.0 In the premises aforesaid, I do not find any merits in the petition. The same is therefore rejected.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru* Top