TAPENSEN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 09 -07 -2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1885 of 2001 (reported in 2001 AIR Jhar. HCR 570 : 2002 Lab IC 1059) by reason whereof the writ application preferred by the respondents was allowed and the award of the Presiding officer, Labour Court was set aside.
(2.) THE essential facts which need to be taken note of is that on 13 -01 -1996 the concerned workman, namely, Anil Kumar Jha was transferred from Jamshedpur to Bombay. At the relevant time he was working in the Purchase Department and by reason of the order of transfer he was directed to report for duty at Bombay by 24 -01 -1996. It was also intimated in the order of transfer that he would be relieved from his duties at Jamshedpur from the close of the working hours of 16th January, 1996. A dispute was then raised by the Union and on 17 -09 -1996 the same led to a reference being made by the Government of Bihar to the Labour Court. Jamshedpur to adjudicate as to ''Whether the transfer of Shri Anil Kumar Jha, Ticket No. 72353, M/s. Usha Martin Industries Ltd. [Usha Alloys Steels Division], Jamshedpur from Jamshedpur to Bombay by the management is proper ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to - Before the Labour Court, the Union filed a Written Statement wherein they made specific statements in relation to the Trade Union Activities of the concerned workman and stated at paragraph 3 thereof that he was an active member of the Union and had been playing a very vital role in organising the workmen and representing their cause before the management under the banner of Usha Workers ' Union. They further stated at paragraph 4 of the said Written Statement that the concerned workman was initially appointed as a Commercial Trainee by a letter dated 21 -04 -1979 [Annexure 'A ' to the Memo of Appeal], but no formal training was given to him and he was made to perform duty like any other employee and on satisfactory completion of a period of one year he was given a formal letter of appointment dated 01 -05 -1980. According to the Union the aforementioned letter dated 01 -05 -1980 contained general terms and conditions of employment but did not contain any terms or conditions in respect of the right of the management to transfer him from one place to another or from one department to another. The Union further specifically stated that the concerned workman had lost the original copy of the said letter of appointment dated 01 -05 -1980 but had put his acknowledgment on the original which had been retained by the management and therefore, the onus lay on the management to bring the said acknowledged copy of the letter on record of the case. They have further stated that the letter dated 01 -05 -1980 which was a formal letter of appointment designated the concerned workman as 'Staff on Special Duty ' [SSD] for a period of one year. According to the Union this period was extended for a further period of six months by a letter 01 -05 -1981 inspite of representation filed by the workman on 19 -08 -1981. Thereafter, he was placed as a Senior Clerk with effect from 01 -11 -1981 and was promoted as a Personnel Assistant with effect from 01 -04 -1982 and his work was found to be satisfactory.
(3.) FURTHER case of the Union before the Labour Court was of malice and they specifically stated at paragraphs 6 to 17 of the Written Statement that the workman by reason of his being an employee of the Company became a member of the U.M.B. Mazdoor Sangh, a recognised Union representing the cause of persons employed in the Company with effect from 01 -10 -1982. He was also elected as Joint Secretary of the said Sangh and in that capacity he brought irregularities to the notice of the management which was not appreciated by them. Consequently he was issued with a charge -sheet dated 03 -11 -1982 containing some allegations and which ended with the issuance of a warning to him and that too at the intervention of the then Working President of the Sangh, Mr. M. P. Singh. They further stated that the concerned workman had been subjected to unfair labour practices, victimization and harassment for his trade union activities. They started taking arbitrary action against him one after the other on account of his growing popularity. They firstly transferred him to the Security Department from the post of Personal Assistant with effect 25 -11 -1982 as a measure of punishment. Being aggrieved, the Sangh filed a representation and it was also accompanied by a delegate of the Sangh consisting of about 15 -20 active members, but it was also not appreciated by the management, which in turn, issued a chargesheet dated 29 -11 -1982 and placed him under suspension pending inquiry. This resulted in a strong protest by the Sangh and a token strike for one day, 1. e. on 01 -12 -1982. In the meantime, the workman had also submitted his explanation to the above mentioned chargesheet and a domestic enquiry was also initiated, but when the management felt that it was not going to succeed, and at the intervention of the President of the U.M.B. Mazdoor Sangh Staff Cell, his order of suspension was revoked and he joined in the Security Department. In the said department, the work of the workman was found to be very good but in order to further her ass him he was again transferred to the Commercial Department as a Commercial Assistant with effect from 01 -08 -1983. He worked very sincerely but the management did not allow him to work peacefully and again a chargesheet dated 13 -08 -1984 was issued and till the time of filing of the written statement, the Union stated that it was yet to hear from the management about further steps taken in that respect and since there was silence on the part of the management, the concerned workman was led to believe that the charge -sheet had been dropped and his explanation accepted. The Union further stated before the Labour Court that the workman was again transferred from the Commercial Department to the Accounts Department with effect from 02 -07 -1984 where again, he worked satisfactorily but once again in order to harass him, the management issued a letter dated 09 -07 -1985 warning him to perform his duties diligently. The concerned workman replied by his letter dated 01 -07 -1985 refuting the allegations but once again nothing was heard thereafter till the time of filing of the written statement before the Labour Court. Thereafter, the Union stated before the Labour Court that the management started harassing the concerned workman by not assigning any work to him as a result whereof, he made several representations and he was also deprived of his annual increment without any valid reason.;