- (1.) RULE. Respondents waive service. Heard forthwith.
(2.) PETITIONER Nos. 2 to 17 are employed with respondent No. 1 either falling in the category of journalists or non working journalists. The petitioner No. 1 is a registered trade union. The petitioners filed a complaint being Complaint No. 1039/2001. In the complaint it was alleged that the respondents have engaged in and continue to engage in unfair labour practices from 28th November, 2001 under Items 3, 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act, 1971. Respondent No. 1 is a company engaged in printing and publishing a newspaper known as Nava Bharat in Hindi. The respondents also undertake work jobs of various other local newspapers such as Nav Nagar, Janmudra, Dinman, Maha Janshakti etc. Respondent No. 1 is in existence for more than 4 years. Respondent No. 2 is the Managing Director of the Company. Respondent No. 1 employs more than 125 employees and has establishment at Navi Mumbai and Chinchpokali. In the complaint the petitioners have set out the joining date of each of the petitioners, their, designation and salary drawn. It was their case that they are covered by the Manisana Wage Board Award and, that, the respondent No. 1 company falls in Class IV under the said Award. It is their further case that, the respondent No. 1 has failed to implement the Award considering that they fall under Class IV Establishment, in a like manner as other establishments have done. The petitioners along with others were agitated on account of the attitude of respondent No. 1 and as such, they approached the petitioner No. 1 union. The petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 5 approached the petitioner No. 1 on 27th November, 2001. The respondent No. 1 on coming to know on the very next day, threatened to transfer them from Mumbai. The petitioners Nos. 9, 10 and 11 have also aggrieved by non implementation of the Award. On 28th November, 2001, they were also threatened of dire consequences of transfer from Mumbai. Similarly, other petitioners were also threatened of transfer to various other places if they continue their membership. It is contended that this action of the petitioners of threatening the complainant of transfer and action of transferring petitioners Nos. 2, 3, 5, 10, 11 amounts to an unfair labour practice under Items 3, 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act, 1971. Various reasons are also set out in the complaint. The nature of work done by the petitioners is also set out. It is also set out that, apart from those transfers the petitioners 4, 6, 7 and 9, 13, 15 and 17 are liable to be summarily transferred. Various reliefs have been prayed, including that the transfers and proposed transfers be stayed and, that, the petitioners Nos. 2 to 17 should not be transferred to any place outside Mumbai. An affidavit was filed in support of the complaint. Interim relief applications were also taken out.
(3.) ON behalf of the respondents Mr. Vivek Prasad, Deputy General Manager has filed an affidavit in reply opposing the application of interim relief. It is set out that the complaint is misconceived, untenable and no case of unfair labour practices under the items invoked has been made out by the petitioners. It is contended that the allegations regarding joining union are an after thought. The transfer orders are challenged as a mala fide action, without giving legally cognizable particulars. The complaint it is averred is an abuse of the process of law. It is pointed out that, it is only on 11th December, 2001 at about 5. 30 p. m. that the respondent realised that there is a union by name "brihan Mumbai Union of Journalists". The first respondent has not sent any letter, communication or any writing in regard to any enrolment of the petitioners as members nor any material is produced to show that the petitioners are its members. The transfers as contended are issued on 27th November, 2001 and 10th December, 2001 and has been issued to petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10 and 11. The transfers have become effective. It is then set out that the letters of appointment issued to the petitioner Nos. 2 to 17 provides for transfer clause and Clause 5 of the appointment letter provides that the petitioners are liable to be transferred from one establishment to another establishment depending upon administrative exigencies. It is then set out that, the first respondent has been incurring heavy losses and unless the losses are averted and the finances are put in better position, closure is inevitable. The position regarding improvement of finances are periodically discussed and in these circumstances, it was decided to strengthen the branches by providing necessary men power by re shuffling some of the employees, to start with. It is in these circumstances, the transfer orders have been issued in the bona fide interest of respondent No. 1. It is also denied that any of the petitioner were threatened with dire consequences. It is pointed out that the petitioner No. 2 without challenging the order of transfer, merely prayed for time to report for the work by letter dated 1st December, 2001. For all these reasons as set out, it is prayed that the interim relief be rejected. A written statement has also been filed, meeting the various averments by the petitioner in the complaint and denying the contentions. An additional affidavit which is by way of objection to interim relief is filed on 21st January, 2002. Reliance is placed on documents which include minutes of various meeting held by respondent No. 1.;