Forum Home > Labour & Service Law > unique industrial dispute NIACL 
|
25 June 2011, 18:56 |
|
|
ShriGopal Soni
translator
|
RTI application from Shri Gopal Soni
Share |
|
|
|
|
29 June 2011, 17:29 |
|
|
ShriGopal Soni
translator
|
Request for imediate relief in the matter of altered service conditions
From: "rev ribhav" <revribhav@yahoo.com> To: dyclcajmer@nic.in Message contains attachments 1 File (27KB) Hon”ble ALC O/o Dy CLC 27.06.2011 Haribhau Upadhyay Nagar (extension) Pushkar Road,Ajmer-305004
Sir,
Re: Request for immediate relief in the matter of altered service conditions ShriGopal Soni Vs New India Assurance Co Ltd,File No. AJ-7 (5)/2011-ALC
It is respectfully brought to your kind notice that in response to petition dated 24.02.2011 and subsequent applications the Assistant Labour Commissioner , (c), the appropriate conciliation officer has been holding proceeding and notice under the Industrial Disputes Act-1947 dated 4.04.2011 has been served to the Head Office,Regional Officer,local authorities of New India Assurance Co Ltd, Mumbai ,Jaipur Ajmer respectively ; henceforth called respondents . Therefore, dispute is pending against prolonged victimization amounting to unfair labour practices against the workman who has been served various orders of suspension/inquiries/ dismissal etc. at Ajmer on account of his so called misconduct ,allegedly since June 2007 . Workman has requested for declaring all disciplinary proceedings and consequent orders against him as void ab initio, inter alia on the ground that there has neither been any material against the applicant workman (the only one “grave” violation of Company Rules ever alleged in the entire charge memo was that of leaving Headquarters by a law graduate official ) nor the disciplinary rules, admittedly non-communicated with any circular in writing (kindly refer reply 13.04.2011 of the respondents addressed to ALC,ajmer) ,nor published in gazette/booklet can be reasonably invoked by authority of ordinary prudence to inflict any punishment . Distorting the rule of law,the respondents state that “Company can impose any penalty for any misconduct” (ref. reply 13.04.2011) , it is indeed a rude shock that neither a defence assistant was provided nor an opportunity of any cross –examination of any witness was accorded to the applicant workman. There has been no recording in any of the decisions of the so called Presenting officer/ Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority/Appellate Authority/Chairman to that effect. The Regional Labour Commissioner,Ajmer has observed in writing vide letter dated 24.06.2011 under the Right to Information (point No.7) in reply to RTI dated 24.5.11 that there is no industrial dispute other than applicant himself,of any workman being punished on account of such disciplinary rules that have never been communicated in writing. Meanwhile, order dated 9/03/2011* has been passed by respondent no.2 and referring to that order,the respondent no.1 has issued transfer orders to applicant workman which amounts to breach of section 33(1)(a) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In such circumstances, prior permission was absolutely necessary as per the decision reported in 2009 LLR p.811 (Punjab and Haryana High Court between Ram Sanjeev and others ..vs.. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T.Chandigarh and another), it has been held that approval application has to be filed only before the court in which the industrial dispute is pending. The petioner workman quotes from the citation of Hon”ble Supreme Court of India as referred in First Flight Couriers Limited vs Karnataka Courier And Cargo ... on 10 October, 2000 of Karnataka High Court, interpreting the following: The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,section 33,section 2,section 18 “(17). In this case as noted above, the reference was made by the Government as to whether the transfer of 22 employees was just and reasonable and subsequently this respondent 2 also was transferred, Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to grant relief as sought for as it would adversely affect the case espoused by the Union and if such relief is not granted, the petitioner would be able to transfer other workmen also whereby they would be victimised and exploited… (18). In M/s. New India Motors (Private) Limited, New Delhi v K.T. Morris, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held: "During the pendency of an industrial dispute, status quo should be maintained and no further element of discord should be introduced. That being the object of Section 33, the narrow construction of the material used in Section 33(l)(a) would tend to defeat the said object. If it is held that the workmen concerned in the dispute of only those who are directly or immediately concerned in the dispute, it would give liberty to the employer to alter the terms and conditions of the remaining workmen and that would inevitably introduce further …There is no justification for adding the further qualification of direct or immediate concern which the narrow construction necessarily assumes. … (19). ..Though a specific number of employees are mentioned as per the list enclosed therein, the main object of reference is to find out as to whether the transfer order passed by the Management was just and proper. Under those circumstances, the respondents had no other alternative but to approach the Tribunal to redress grievances. Therefore, it cannot be said that the reference is only pertaining to those 22 employees and not to the respondent 2's order of transfer. If that restricted meaning is given, that will ultimately lead to a confusion and the 2nd respondent will be without remedy. We have to see the main object of the reference to give relief to the employees. …Therefore, it is clear that the respondents have made out a prima facie case before the Tribunal that the order of transfer against the 2nd respondent is affecting the very service condition of the respondent 2.” It is submitted that the underlined extract has already been brought to the attention of the respondents vide e-mail dated 20.06.2011 to respondent No.2,the Chairman including copy of the e-mail to concerned DGM (Personnel), both the authorities have already responded to the earlier e-mails of the applicant workman from each of their respective e-mail address,as per the Information Technology Act-2000,e-mail has been valid means of communication. The aforesaid e-mail has been taken up during proceedings dated 24.06.2011 by ALC and reply of the respondents have been sought upon the request of applicant ,which has not been received till date. Despite that the respondent no.1& 2,have issued orders of transfer ,without quoting any specific rule, deliberately ignoring the fact that Industrial Disputes Act prohibits changing the service conditions to the disadvantage of the workman,therefore the orders dated 9.06.2011 containing transfer by way of punishment and subsequent order dated 22.06.11 of transferring the workman to Ahmedabad by respondents amounts to unfair labour practice . The Supreme Court in Bhavnagar Municipality v. Alibhai Karimbhai (1977)-1 LLJ 407 laid down that in order to attract Section 33(1)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the following features must be present: (1) There is a proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute pending before the Tribunal. (2) Conditions of service of the workmen applicable immediately before the commencement of the Tribunal proceeding are altered. (3) The alteration of the conditions of service is in regard to a matter connected with the pending industrial dispute. (4) The workmen whose conditions of service are altered are concerned in the pending industrial dispute. (5) The alteration of the conditions of service is to the prejudice of the workmen". That all the aforesaid (1) to (5) features are fully present ,the applicant workman has been sought to be transferred from Ajmer to Ahmedabad thereby changing his service conditions to his disadvantage as part of the continuing victimization and the Deputy General Manager on behalf of respondents has admitted that “transfer has been the root cause of troubles”, that is victimization, (since June 2007,the initial date of singling the applicant out for non- sanction of leave ).
Extract of e-mail Saturday, June 18, 2011 From: "kv.krishna@newindia.co.in" <kv.krishna@newindia.co.in> To: "rev ribhav" revribhav@yahoo.com (e-mai address of applicant) “Mr. Soni, You have filed a case and obtained a stay on your transfer. Whether you agree or not your approaching the court against your transfer appears to be the starting point of your troubles, …I may advise you to put full stop to your legal matters including your case for promotion . As far as this countries legal system is understood by me , the winner weeps at home and the loser weeps at court.” In view of the above immediate stay orders against malafide orders of transfer be issued so as to enable the applicant resume his services,without any further delay at Ajmer, pending the current proceedings . Yours Sincerely, Shri Gopal Soni ,Hindi Translator , (revribhav@yahoo.com)(Res) ,C231,Panch Sheel Nagar,Ajmer-305004 (tel.0145-2644106) cc : dyclcajmer@nic.in Hon”ble Dy Chief Labour Commissioner, (C)Ajmer *typographical error: kindly correct as 9.06.2011 in place of 9.03.2011 |
Your case as per your post is indeed unique.
K.V.Krishna being a senior employee in personnel department, must have dealt with many cases, and must have seen winners and losers weeping at home and in court, hence his written remarks. Krishna has frankly advised in writing that you must withdraw from the ambit of courts of law and surrender to the courts of chairman, and his managers, and accept their words with grace as the last and final verdict from the lords of universe. It seems to be clear like writing on the wall, that they shall not reform, and their tantrums shall continue. They are not realizing that they are dealing with adults. With limited understanding and wisdom that the god almighty has granted us, it is not difficult to understand that you shall require being prepared always. With all the material and preparation and knowledge of your case, you have, it is heartfelt that you shall succeed in getting justice. Persist.
It has become the game of chess. Before you make your move, you must know the next move of the opponent. They are predictable. They had filed caveat in HC. However still you have have been granted stay.
Chairman Ramadoss has passed a vindictive order and has added discord. You can submit to the ALC, LC to call the chairman Ramadoss in person. You should press for it. Let Chairman and his advisors submit their contentions and wise justifications before the court of law, and convince the court in person,” Katghare me khare howo” and let the court unleash to them "you shall not harass any more". Your demand for reinstatement with back wages is not seen in your post.
Ajmer is one place where high and mighty comes and bow their heads, pray to rid them of their sins, and prostrate before the lord almighty.
It is heartfelt that you are progressing with your case.
