- (1.) Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 06.08.2015 (Annexure P-1).
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the transfer order had been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The case has been transferred from Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Gurgaon to Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Gurgaon without any valid reasons. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Pushpa Devi Saraf versus Jai Narain Parasrampuria, 1992 AIR(SC) 1133, wherein, it was held as under:- "When a transfer petition is filed making such or similar allegations, the report if and when called for, should normally be confined to the allegations made against the impartiality or fairness of the Judge and not with respect to the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by him. We are saying this because it appears that on the transfer petition being filed, the learned District Judge appears to have called-for a report from the Presiding Officer. In his report, the Presiding Officer not only denies the imputations made against him but also explains and justifies the orders passed by him. This he did evidently because in the transfer petition, the correctness of some of his orders was questioned. In our opinion, a Presiding Officer of a court should not be put to such an explanation, barring exceptional circumstances."
(3.) Learned counsel has also placed reliance on Management of M/s M.S. Nenally Bharat Engg. Co. Ltd. versus State of Bihar and others, 1990 2 SCC 48, wherein, it was held as under:- "In the present case, the State has withdrawn the pending reference from the Labour Court, Dhanbad and transferred it to another Labour Court at the distant District of Patna, on the representation of the workman, without getting it verified from the management. The State in fairness ought to have got it verified by giving an opportunity to the management which is a party to the pending reference. Denial of that opportunity is a fatal flaw to the decision of the Government. The management need not establish particular prejudice for want of such opportunity. In S.L. Kapoor v. Jagrnohan, 1981 1 SCR 746 at 765 Chinnappa Reddy, J., after referring to the observation of Donaldson, J., in Altco Ltd. v. Sutherland,1971 2 Lloyd sRep 515 said that the concept that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done is basic to our system and it is concerned not with a case of actual injustice but with the appearance of injustice or possible injustice. It was emphasized that the principles of natural justice know of no exclusionary rule dependent on whether it would have made any difference if natural justice had been observed. The non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary.";