- (1.) BY this petition, the order dated 13.12.2013 issued by Deputy Manager, Human Resources Department, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Kanpur, with the approval of the Competent Authority, is under challenge. Thereby, the petitioner Sri Ashfaq Ahmad, Chief Supervisor (Mechanical), M&P Shop (DPM), Kanpur was job rotated to Customer Services Department, Air Force Station, Baroda.
(2.) THE order has been subjected to challenge on the following grounds: - "(a) The petitioner, a workman working in non -sensitive department, is not covered by Job Rotation Policy and thus, the impugned order is without jurisdiction. (b) Order is an outcome of malice which the employer bears against the petitioner for having approached this Court challenging suspension order passed against him. (c) Impugned order will cause immense hardships to the petitioner and his family."
(3.) HINDUSTAN Aeronautics Ltd. is a company registered under the Companies Act,1956. It is a public sector undertaking under the administrative control of Ministry of Defence, Department of Defence, Production and Supplies and deals in manufacture of aircrafts, helicopters repairing and overhauling, to cater the Defense needs of India. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Transport Aircraft Division, Chakeri, Kanpur is part of Accessories Complex of HAL. It provides service to Air Force Bases at Yelhenka Bangalore, Baroda, Hyderabad, Nasik, Barrackpore, Koraput, Orissa, Goa, Tambaran (Chennai). It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, who is working as Chief Supervisor (Mechanical) and is thus a workmen, holding a non -sensitive post, is not covered by the Job Rotation Policy contained in Circular dated 13.09.2000.On the other hand, Sri S.D. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Diptiman Singh appearing on behalf of H.A.L. submits that there is a separate Job Rotation Policy for all workmen, irrespective of the department in which they are working. The same has been brought on record as Annexure CA -1 dated 1.3.1972. However, counsel for the petitioner submitted that Job Rotation Policy dated 1.3.1972 was superseded by the policy dated 20.1.2006, which does not provide for job rotation of the workmen. It is contended that the only policy in vogue as on date is the one contained in the Circular dated 13.09.2000, which applies only to officers working in sensitive department of the Company and thus, the impugned order by which the petitioner has been job rotated, is without jurisdiction.;