R.R.K. Trivedi, J. - (1.) In this petition counter affidavit has been filed by respondent and both the Learned Counsel have agreed that the writ petition may be disposed of finally at this stage.
(2.) By means of this writ petition petitioner has challenged the order dated October 1, 1993, Annexure 1 to the writ petition, by which petitioner who is a Senior Assistant working in P.S. 3 Department has been transferred to Regional Marketing Centre, ALIMCO, C/o National Institute of Orthopaedically Handicapped, B.T. Road, Bon Honghly, Calcutta.
(3.) Learned Counsel for petitioner has questioned the legality of the aforesaid order of transfer on the ground that the respondent industrial establishment has Certified Standing Orders which do not contain any provision for transfers and the employer in absence of such a provision could not pass the impugned order transferring petitioner from Kanpur to Calcutta. It has been farther submitted that though petitioner was appointed in the year 1976 and the order of appointment contained a condition that petitioner may be transferred to other centers anywhere in India at the discretion of the management but this condition was meaningless as at the time of appointment there was no other centre except Kanpur. The two other centres at Calcutta (West Bengal) and Bhuvneshwar (Orissa) came in existence in 1983. Learned Counsel submitted that the aforesaid condition in the order of appointment became ineffective on the certified Standing Orders coming into existence which have statutory effect and govern the terms and conditions of service. Learned Counsel has further submitted that respondent submitted the draft Standing Orders under Section 3 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and the draft Standing Orders in Clause 22 contained a condition of transfer of the employees. The union of the workers of which the petitioner was also member opposed the said clause containing the provision of transfer. The Certifying Officer after hearing both the parties found the provision of transfer as unfair and unreasonable and deleted the same. The Learned Counsel has submitted that as the provision with regard to transfer has already been adjudicated by a quasi-judicial authority and the order has become final, the respondent's order directing transfer of petitioner is wholly illegal and without authority. Lastly, it has been submitted by Learned Counsel for petitioner that the condition of transfer in the appointment order is illegal and void as it is unregistered and it was not arrived at before the Conciliation Officer as required under Section 6-B of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.;