Partly allowed

K.Vijayakumar v. Indian Overseas Bank

Kerala HC6 Nov 2009WP(C)/717/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court declined to adjudicate on inter-regional transfer eligibility under an industrial settlement, remitting the dispute to the Industrial Court. However, directed the bank to consider an application for intra-region transfer.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed regarding eligibility declaration; directed Bank to consider petitioner's request for transfer to a station nearer to Ernakulam in the Calicut region.

K.Vijayakumar Vs Indian Overseas Bank — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 717 of 2009(I)

¶6

------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

---------------

¶9

K.VIJAYAKUMAR, SPECIAL CADRE ASSISTANT, ROLL NO. 14457, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, MANJERI BRANCH, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

---------------

¶13

1. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CENTRAL OFFICE, 763, ANNA SALAI, CHENAI 600 002,

¶14

2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, PERSONAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, INDIA OVERSEAS BANK, CENTRAL OFFICE, 763, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI 600 002,.

¶15

3. THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, REGONAL OFFICE, CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE.

¶16

ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR, SC,I.O.BANK FOR R3

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WPC NO.717/2009

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶21

P1 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 28/11/2000 OF R3.

¶22

P2 : COPY OF REQUEST FOR TRANSFER DATED 07/02/2008.

¶23

P3 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 06/03/2008 OF R3 TO THE PETITIONER.

¶24

P4 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 07/04/2008 OF THE PETTIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶25

P5 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 12/05/2008 OF R3 TO THE PETITIONER.

¶26

P6 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 02/07/08 OF THE RTI CELL OF R1 IN REPLY TO THE PETITIONER'S REQUEST DATED 18/06/2008.

¶27

P7 : COPY OF CIRCULAR DATED 20/12/2008 OF R3.

¶28

P8 : COPY OF CIRCULAR DATED 22/04/2002 OF R3.

¶29

P9 : COPY OF PETITIONER'S REQUEST WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 23/12/2008 TO R3.

¶30

P10 : COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.PAD/13/2009-10 DATED 15/10/2009 ISSUED BY R3.

¶31

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

¶32

R1(a) : COPY OF SETTLEMENT ARRIVED AT BETWEEN THE BANK AND ITS UNION OF EMPLOYEES DATED 23/10/2002.

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE.

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

WP(C) No.717 of 2009

Dated, this the 6^th day of November, 2009

¶39

The petitioner entered the services of the respondent Bank as a Shroff/Godown Keeper. He earned promotion as a clerk. By Ext.P1 dated 28/11/2000, the petitioner has been assigned Special Assistant duties, in terms of the provisions contained in Ext.R1(a), a settlement between the Management and the All India Overseas Bank Employees Union under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, the petitioner is now posted at Manjeri in Malappuram District, which comes under the Kozhikkode Region. He requested for a transfer to one of the branches within the Ernakulam Region. That was not favourably considered by the Bank, and therefore, this writ petition is filed.

¶40

The contention raised by the Bank is that employees in

¶41

the clerical cadre are assigned for Special Assistant duties by virtue of the provisions contained in Ext.R1(a) settlement, based on regional seniority. It is stated that in view of this, if inter regional

¶42

WP(C) No.717/2009

¶43

-2-

¶44

transfer is allowed, that will affect the chances of the employees within other regions, who are eligible to be assigned with Special Assistant duties. They also relied on various provisions of Ext.R1(a) settlement to sustain their contention. It is also pointed out in the counter affidavit that in 2006, when the petitioner raised this claim, that was turned down, and that an Industrial Dispute raised at the instance of his Union on this issue is pending consideration of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam.

¶45

Essentially, the dispute raised in this writ petition involves interpretation of the provisions of the settlement, the relevant portion of which is Ext.R1(a). In terms of the provisions contained under Section 36-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, if any difficulty or doubt arises as to the interpretation of any provision of an award or settlement, it is for the appropriate Government to refer the question to such Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal as it may think fit. Therefore, a dispute of the nature raised in this writ petition is a matter to be adjudicated by the Industrial Court appreciating factual contentions, and therefore, this Court will not be justified in undertaking such an exercise in its jurisdiction under

¶46

WP(C) No.717/2009

¶47

-3-

¶48

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶49

Further, Clause 6(a) of the settlement also provides that an employee, who was transfered from one region to another, at his request, shall not be eligible for assignment of Special Assistant duties. In the light of this clause, this Court cannot also hold that the stand taken by the Bank is such an arbitrary or perverse one warranting interference in a writ petition. Further, this issue is also pending consideration of the Industrial Court in the dispute raised at the instance of the petitioner.

¶50

In these circumstances, the prayer sought by the petitioner to declare his eligibility for inter regional transfer with Special Assistant duties, is declined, but, without prejudice to his contentions before the Industrial Court, which shall decide the dispute untrammeled by this judgment.

¶51

The petitioner now submits that, if not to the Ernakulam Region, he may at least be considered for a transfer within the Calicut Region, to a station nearer to Ernakulam Region. When this request was made, the learned counsel for the Bank offered to consider the request in the light of the Rules, along with other

WP(C) No.717/2009

-4-

requests.

In the light of the above, it is directed that Ext.P9 request made by the petitioner for transfer to a place near to Ernakulam Region shall be considered by the respondents in accordance with law, and as expeditiously as possible, before the vacancies, if any, are filled up.

¶56

The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 2^nd respondent for compliance.

¶57

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶58

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)

¶59

K.Vijayakumar v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Vijayakumar v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.S.E.Board,Rep.by Its Chairman & Others Vs C.K.Narayanan and Another

Velayudhan P.& Others Vs State of Kerala & Others

Mathiri Davidson Vs Chairman & Managing Director,Kbps

K.Sasidharan Vs State of Kerala

Dhanesh.a.S. Vs K.P.S.C. and Others

J.Sarala Devi Vs State of Kerala