[2025:RJ-JP:51849] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15939/2025 Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd., Saudamini, Plot No. 2 Sector 29, Gurgaon 122001 Haryana (Through Its Chairman And Managing Director). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Power Grid Karmcharee Sangathan, Uttari Kshetr Pratham Registered Union Office- A 26, Dda Flats, Double Storey Garhi East Of Kailash, New Delhi 110065 Through Its President Rajesh Kumar Jat. 2. Sh. Rajesh Kumar Jat S/o Phoola Ram Jat, R/o Village- Munadawara, Via- Narayanpur, Tehsil- Thanagazi, Alwar (Rajasthan)- 301024. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Virendra Lodha, Senior Advocate with Dr. Prateek Sharma and Mr. Ashim Chatterjee For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 18/11/2025 1. Instant writ petition is filed by petitioner with following prayer:- It is, therefore, most humble prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly call for the entire record and after examining the same be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 28.08.2025 making the reference in the Industrial Dispute Case No. Aj- 8(02)/7/2025-IR(300129038) before appropriate court of law. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances [2025:RJ-JP:51849] (2 of 6) [CW-15939/2025] of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. 2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have raised a dispute before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) and after considering the dispute, a reference is made under Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, (CGIT), Jaipur. He further submits that the law over the issue, is well settled and same cannot be agitated as a matter of right before any court of law. He placed reliance upon judgment in case of Shilpi Bose Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1999 SC 532, and B. Varadha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. (1986) 4 SCC 131 and submitted that transfer of an employee is an incident of service and same cannot be agitated in any court of law by invoking any statutory remedy. 3. Learned Senior Advocate has further referred judgment in case of Lalit Kumar Prasad Vs. State of Bank of India and Ors. Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 111 and 174 of 2013 (decision dated 14.02.2013) and Usha Workers Union Vs. Usha Martin Industries Ltd. [2003(2)JCR264(JHR] and submitted that even the standing orders issued under the Standing Orders Act does not give any right to any workman to invoke jurisdiction under the Industrial Dispute Act to raise a dispute in matter of transfer before the Labour Commissioner. He further referred judgment in case of The Management of The Syndicate Bank Vs. Workmen AIR 1966 SC 1283 and submitted that even a transfer cannot be challenged on allegations of malafide unless same is ex facie established from the fact. He [2025:RJ-JP:51849] (3 of 6) [CW-15939/2025] further submits that respondent No.2 was transferred from Neemrana to Indravati (Odisha) on the post of Multi-tasking Staff Grade-V and same is on administrative ground as there is no malafides attached with the transfer order. 4. Learned Senior Advocate further referred the terms of appointment of employee under the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. and submitted that several projects are operational within country and abroad, and an employee is entitled to be transferred to any place as per administrative need and same cannot be challenged on any of the ground. He further submits that the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner have failed to appreciate the legal position while referring the dispute to the Tribunal. He further submits that petitioner has a right to challenge the reference made to the Tribunal. 5. Considered submission of learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and perused the material placed on record. 6. The material on record indicate that respondent No.2 Rajesh Kumar Jat, who was posted as Multi-tasking Staff Grade-V is transferred from Neemrana NR-1 to Indravati (Odisha) vide order dated 08.05.2025. The order itself indicate that with effect from 09.05.2025, the employee shall stand relieved from his current place of posting. Respondent No.2 Rajesh Kumar Jat has raised an industrial dispute under the Industrial Dispute Act and same was referred by the Deputy Labour Commissioner vide order dated 26.08.2025/28.08.2025 to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur with following term of reference:- [2025:RJ-JP:51849] (4 of 6) [CW-15939/2025] “Whether the action of the management of Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Faridabad to transfer Shri Rajesh Kumar Jat from Neemrana (Rajasthan) to Indravati (Odisha), and Shri Shailendra Sharma from Bikaner (Rajasthan) to Munirabad, Koppal (Karnataka) is a malafide act and/or unfair labour practice? If yes, what relief Shri Rajesh Kumar Jat and Shri Shailendra Shrma are entitled to and from which date? What other directions are necessary in this respect? 7. Now, come the question whether at this preliminary stage, can this Court while invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India quash the reference made by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Ajmer. 8. When a dispute is raised by the workmen through union particularly, alleging unfair labour practice adopted by the management (employer) then he is bound to follow procedure. Herein after receipt of notice, a reply is filed by the Power Grid Corporation (employer) denying the grounds of malafides and unfair labour practice. 9. A reply filed by the Power Grid Corporation clearly indicate that several objections were raised, which include non-applicability of provision of the Industrial Establishment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, upon the petitioner organization. Several factual issues were also mentioned in the reply and we have considered them as well. The failure report of conciliation dated 28.07.2025 prepared by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Jaipur, clearly indicate that all efforts were made by the Conciliation Officer to resolve the dispute but all efforts were failed. [2025:RJ-JP:51849] (5 of 6) [CW-15939/2025] 10. First issue is with regard to authority of reference and second issue is right of management to transfer of an employee on grounds of administrative exigencies. 11. Since, a reference is already been made under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute, Act and moreover, in entire reply filed before the Labour Commissioner, the grounds and non- applicability of provision were made and same were prima facie considered by the Labour Commissioner. The respondents have claimed that he is workman and it is a case of victimization and unfair labour practice. The issue requires consideration by the Industrial Tribunal, as same is an issue of fact. 12. Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 empowers the appropriate Government to refer any industrial dispute, which exists or is apprehended to Conciliation Authority. Herein this case, a dispute is raised before the Conciliation Officer and same is referred after failure of conciliation efforts, thus, prima facie the jurisdiction is of CGIT to decide the dispute as per law. 13. Whether the Industrial Establishment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 is applicable or not is a legal ground and same requires consideration during adjudication on reference. Similarly, the affected person Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jat is a workman or not, is also a question to be considered by the Tribunal, if any objection is raised. Similarly, if there is any allegation of malafides or victimization, then same requires evidence and again, it is subject matter to be considered during adjudication process of reference. 14. Learned Senior Advocate has insisted that transfer is an incident of service and same cannot be treated as malafide or victimization. I agree with the proposition that transfer is an [2025:RJ-JP:51849] (6 of 6) [CW-15939/2025] incident of service, but same does not mean that management is empowered to do anything without balancing the needs of individuals working in the organization. The petitioner is a Government company and they are supposed to act in accordance with the rules and procedure. If Chairman or MD (Managing Director) or any other Officer, act contrary to the rules then he may be liable for action and there is no immunity from any prosecution. 15. The respondent has claimed himself a Multi-tasking Staff (MTS), who is a lower grade employee and transferred from Rajasthan to Odisha, nearly 1800 kms from current place of posting. It is something which may create a doubt on intention of management, particularly when the person termed the action as an act of victimization resulting in unfair labour practice. All these issues are again subject matter of evidence and a factual issue. 16. The judgments as referred by learned Senior Advocate requires consideration when reference will be considered on merits, but not at this stage as jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be used to abort the action initiated under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, therefore, the writ petition is a futile attempt to defeat the provision under the Industrial Dispute Act. 17. As a result, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed with pending application, if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J GAURAV /392