Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/11533/2008 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11533 of 2008
=========================================================
SULOCHANA
A R - Petitioner
Versus
CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER - Respondent
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
SATYAPAL K GUSAIN for Petitioner
None for
Respondent
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 16/09/2008
ORAL
ORDER
The
petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 26.11.2007 and
14.5.2008 issued by respondent on the following grounds :
That
the order passed by respondent Company dated 14.5.2008 is arbitrary,
capricious, against law and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
That
the order impugned in this petition being a classic piece of unfair
labour practice as defined under the I.D. Act and therefore, the
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
The
petitioner is working as Steno-typist in Ahmedabad since 20 years
and therefore, the impugned order of posting the petitioner as
Telephone Operator at Mumbai is against the status, pay and other
legal rights and suffered from the vice of arbitrariness and
malafides.
The
impugned order deserves to be quashed, as by the said order, the
Company has changed the status of a running pay scale into a fixed
consolidated pay of the post of Steno-typist upon which the
petitioner has a lien and legal rights.
The
petitioner was to be reinstated on her original posts as per the
award dated 6.9.2007 in Reference (LCA) No. 388 of 2002.
The
impugned order suffers from basis errors, violation of principles of
natural justice, fair play and equity because the petitioner was
never appointed as Telephone Operator and hence she cannot be
transferred from the post of Steno-typist from Ahmedabad to the post
of Telephone Operator at Mumbai without her consent and therefore,
the impugned order is also passed in flagrant violation of
principles of natural justice.
It
is also submitted that the impugned order is nothing but a
camouflage for personal vendetta and fraud on Court as the
petitioner had approached the Court and got reinstatement order in
her favour and in order to make her realize as how she can fight
with mighty multinational Company, she was transferred to Mumbai as
Telephone Operator though there is a branch office at Ahmedabad.
That
the respondent Company is indulging in faux-poss and circumventing
and dirty tricks to victimize the petitioner by transferring the
petitioner to Mumbai. It is further submitted that the said order is
violated by bias and malafides and also suffers from the vice of
colourable exercise of powers and amounts to victimization by
management.
It
is also submitted that the status of telephone operator is much
below than the status of steno-typist.
It
is also submitted that the employer has no right under the ID Act to
pass any order based upon its epsi-decsi.
The
advocate for the petitioner has also placed on record the order
passed by this Court on 29.2.2006 in Misc. Civil Application for
contempt No. 3148 of 2007 in Special Civil Application No. 29653 of
2007.
The
petitioner has made following prayers :
(A)
That this petition may be please be admitted.
(B) That
the impugned orders dated 26.11.2007 and 14.5.2008 of reinstatement
and transfer of the petitioner and posting as
Steno- typist-cum-Telephone Operator on the consolidated salary of
Rs.6000/- per month passed by the respondent may please be quashed
and Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to declare that
petitioner workman is entitled to her original post of Steno- Typist
at Ahmedabad as per the order and award dated 6.9.2007 passed by the
Labour Court at Ahmedabad (Annexure B)
(C) Pending
hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may
graciously be pleased to stay operation, effect and implementation
of the impugned orders stated 26.11.2007 and 14.5.2008 passed by the
respondent Company collectively at ANNEXURE E to the
petition.
Your
Lordships may graciously be pleased to issue a writ or in the
nature of mandamus or any other writ, mandatory order or direction
to the respondent Company to pay the workman all amounts and
consequential benefits with interest at the rate of 18% on the
amounts from the dates those have become due till the date of
actual payment and realization.
(E) Petitioner
may please be awarded heavy and exemplary costs for VICTIMIZATION in
the facts and circumstances of the case.
(F) Your
Lordships may graciously be pleased to grant such other and further
reliefs as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
The
petition is not maintainable against the respondent. It is also
required to be noted that petitioner has appropriate remedy for
grievances voiced in this petition and therefore, the petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. The
petitioner has not pointed out as to how writ or any other
appropriate order could be made against respondent under Article 226
of the Constitution of India. The respondent is not an authority or
an agency or instrumentality of the State nor as it been pointed out
by the counsel as to how the respondent could be said to be within
the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The
petition, therefore, is absolutely without any merits and deserves
to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. However,
there shall be no order as to costs.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,
J.)
pallav
Top