T.K. BANERJEE Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANOTHER
LAWS(UTN)-2012-3-77
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on March 19,2012

T.K. Banerjee Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttarakhand and another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) HAVING heard learned senior counsel, on behalf of petitioner, it transpires that petitioner T.K. Banerjee is a manager of some industrial Unit in State Infrastructure and Industrial Development Corporation of Uttarakhand Ltd. (SIDCUL), located at Pant Nagar, District U.S. Nagar, wherein one Kailash Chandra Khulbe was an employee, designated to work as a Storekeeper. After procuring the consent of petitioner, he was transferred from Pant Nagar Unit to somewhere in District Dhar, Madhya Pradesh. Feeling disgruntled, the employee concerned approached the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Haldwani, who was of the view that the transfer order entailed the violation of Article 26 of the Standing Orders of the Industry. This Article 26 envisages that a workman is liable to be transferred in the interest of Company and for better expectation of the energies of the workman, as also to exigencies of work from one shop or department to another shop or department. It has further been provided that a workman will be liable to be transferred from one establishment to another unit of the company with prior consent of the workman. Provided that .... his wages, grade is not adversely affected. So, in exercise of powers, vested in the Industry under this Article, Mr. Kailash Chandra Khulbe was transferred. He filed a Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1702 of 2006 before this Court and got his transfer stayed. Simultaneously, Mr. Khulbe moved to Labour Authorities, who, on the application of Mr. Khulbe, has filed the complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, U.S. Nagar, bearing no. 3369/2007, whereupon the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against petitioner and one other accused.
(2.) AFTER considering the submissions advanced on behalf of petitioner and also going through the facts and circumstances of the present controversy, the Court feels that the impugned order, as also the order of cognizance, are wholly untenable and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Proceedings of complaint case no. 3369/2007 and the order of cognizance passed thereupon, are hereby quashed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.