This writ petition is listed before this court by the Registry raising a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of writ petition since the petitioner has filed the writ petition questioning the correctness of the transfer order passed by the fourth respondent which is a private company.
2. Answering the issue of maintainability, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, taking support from a judgment of the Apex Court reported in FEDERAL BANK LIMITED v. SAGAR THOMAS (2003) 10 SCC 733) more particularly, para 27, would submit that the Apex Court has held that in certain circumstances, a writ may be issued to private Bodies if they violate any statutory provisions. Again drawing the notice of this court to
Section 25-T of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with clause (vii) of Schedule V which deals with levelling of unfair practice among labour, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that unfair labour practice has been levelled by transferring the petitioner from one place to another person under the guise of management policy. It is contended that at the age of 57 years, when the petitioner is left with only less than one year of service, transfering him from Hosur to Utharkhand is clearly a mala fide on the part of the fourth respondent. Therefore, this court has to issue a writ that there is violation of statutory provisions contained in
Section 25-T read with clause (vii) of Schedule V. Adding further, he would submit that connected writ petitions are also pending before this court wherein the Union is a party and therefore, this matter also can be taken up.
3. But, still, this court does not find any justification to entertain the writ petition. Reason is that para 27 of the judgment cited supra also clearly shows that there is difficulty in issuing a writ where there may not be any non-compliance with or violation of any statutory provision by a private Body. In such event, a writ cannot be issued at all. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner does not stand remedyless. Therefore, this court is not able to appreciate that there is a violation of statutory provision while passing the impugned order of transfer of the petitioner from Hosur to Utharkhand.
4. For the abovesaid reason, the writ petition is not maintainable. Hence, the same fails and the writ petition SR is rejected. However, it is needless to mention that it is open to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum. In such event, the authority may proceed in the manner known to law without being influenced by the observation made by this court.
7.2.2017.
Index: Yes/No.
Internet: Yes/No.
ssk.
To
1. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Salem.
3. The Labour Officer, Krishnagiri.
T.RAJA, J.
Ssk.
W.P.SR No.3912 of 2017 7.2.2017.
http://www.judis.nic.in