G. M. LODHA, J. - (1.) "taking passengers to death" by removing 'control,' and yet the petitioners 'insistence for invoking 'art. 226'.
(2.) A controller of Railway boycotting control is like father or mother killing ones child in womb. "boycott" of Railway control phones and consequential putting railway moving engines out of control, exposes lacs of innocent citizens to risk of limb and life by accidents whether tantamount to boycotting "safety" and encouraging Railway engine 'homicides' by dereliction of duty 'suicide'. Railway Controllers putting railway out of control. Is it not a contradiction and paradox? Are such citizens, guilty of such dangerous conduct unequitable and extraordinary method of exposing lacs of passengers to life hazardy, disentitled from invoking equitable and extraordinary jurisdiction. Would Article 226 also exhibit reluctance to such boycott of human safety and serious disruption of essential services ? These questions incidentally arise in this "boycott and transfer "litigation. ' All the above five petitioners (Schedule A) are Station Masters in Railway. They claim to be office bearers of the All India Station Masters Association. It would be convenient to mention, in details, the facts of one of the first case of R. K. Bhatnagar who joined services as Asstt. Station Master in year 1952. He was promoted as Station Master in 1955 and was posted at Gegal Akhari in Jaipur Division. R. K. Bhatnagar, the petitioner, claims that he is Zonal Vice President of All India Station Masters' Association in Jaipur.
(3.) ASSOCIATION submitted a charter of demands and, notice under Section 22 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act in the year 1980. On 10th April, 1981, the petitioners and others boycotted control phone for 24 hours. On 13th April, 1981, the petitioner- R. K. Bhatnagar was transferred to Bhavnagar Division and on 15th April, 1981, the transfer order was served on the petitioner. In similar circumstances, other petitioners have also been transferred and all of them have challenged the transfer orders. All the petitioners have taken the following principals grounds in their writ petition: (1 ). Seniority of petitioner is maintained division-wise. There is no provision of transfer outside the division and the petitioner will loose seniority in case he is transferred to another division and as the chances of promotion of the petitioner will be affected, the transfer is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (2 ). The petitioner has a right to be considered in his own division for promotion to higher posts and by this transfer, he will be deprived of his right of consideration in his division. (3 ). All the persons working in Grade Rs. 425-640 boycotted the control telephone but only the petitioner has been picked up for the arbitrary treatment of transfer and this act is a clear act of victimisation. (4 ). There is no administrative exigencies or reason for the transfer of the petitioner and this transfer has been effected simply to wrench vengeance against the officer bearers of the Association. The transfer is a discriminatory one to victimise the trade Union activities of the petitioner. No action can be taken against the petitioner in view of section 37 of the Industrial Dispute Act. ;