HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1058 of 2025 (S/S) Shikha Saini and others .....Petitioners Versus Union of India and others .….Respondents Present:- Mr. Nishant Krishna Adhikari, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Saurav Adhikari, Central Government Standing Counsel for the Union of India/respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr. Jasmit Sahota, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Harsh Vardhan Dhanik, Advocate for the respondent no.4. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to the order dated 20.05.2025 passed by respondent no.2-Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Dehradun, by which, a complaint filed by the petitioners has been closed with the advise to the petitioners to file the industrial disputes as per provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The impugned order further provides that if any dispute is received, the same shall be taken up immediately in compliance of the order of this Court passed in WPSS No.550 of 2025, Shikha Saini vs. Union Bank of India and another. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the file. 3. Petitioners are employees of respondent no.4-the Union Bank of India (“the Bank”) and at present, are posted at various branches of the bank in Dehradun. They were temporarily transferred from their Principal place of posting to various branches of the bank in Dehradun. They joined in Dehradun and had completed initial three months period of their temporary posting. However, the bank did not 2 transfer the petitioners at their respective place of posting. Now, it is the grievance of the petitioners that they have been relieved from Dehradun to their Principal branches of bank at their respective place of posting. The petitioners made a complaint to respondent no.2- Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Dehradun, but the complaint was closed on 26.03.2025. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that thereafter, they did file Writ Petition (S/S) No.550 of 2025, Shikha Saini vs. Union Bank of India and another. It was decided on 23.04.2025 with the following directions:- “10. Since, the matter is being remitted back to the Deputy Labour Commissioner to decide afresh, therefore, at this juncture the order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner dated 26.03.2025, whereby, the complaint of the petitioners’ association is closed, is hereby quashed. 11. The authorized representative of the petitioners’ association shall appear before the Deputy Labour Commissioner on 28.04.2025 and thereafter the Deputy Labour Commissioner shall decide the matter after giving proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties within a period of one month thereafter.” 5. It is, thereafter, petitioners did file a fresh complaint before respondent no.2-Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Dehradun, alleging that all the transfers are unlawful and intentional. Respondent no.2-Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Dehradun closed the complaint observing as follows:- “It was informed to the parties that the undersigned has no statutory authority of passing the order as demanded. The workers union has not been able to provide any provisions of law as per which the undersigned can pass the order on the complaint. The general complaints are taken up for resolution of grievances; if the grievances are not resolved the ultimate available remedy is filing of the Industrial Dispute as per provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workers union is not filing the Industrial dispute despite advice. The proper opportunity has been granted to the parties and advice has also been given to file the Industrial Dispute as per Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 as mentioned above. The complaint is hereby closed with the advice to workers union to file the Industrial Dispute as per provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. If any dispute is received by this office, the same shall be taken up immediately in compliance of the 3 order of Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand as directed in WPSS No.550 of 2025.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners were temporarily transferred for three months in various branches of the bank in Dehradun. They were not sent back at their Principal place of posting after three months. The tenure has since been extended. Now, petitioners are working in the various branches of the bank in Dehradun for more than three years and suddenly, they have been transferred to their Principal place of posting. 7. It is argued that temporary transfer could have been for three months alone, but respondent no.4-Union Bank of India failed to transfer the petitioners in their respective places of posting after three months of their temporarily transferred in Dehradun, which was not done. It is argued that the petitioners have now settled in Dehradun. They want some more time to join their Principal place of posting. 8. In fact, in the complaint that was made by the petitioners to respondent no.2-Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Dehradun. Reference has been made by respondent no.4-Union Bank of India to the Bank Service Manual para 7, which reads as follows:- “7. Temporary Transfer All inter-region, inter-zone temporary transfers shall be done by HR Department, Central Office. The Competent Authority in such cases shall be CGM (HR). Cases requiring special consideration shall be referred by respective FGMOs to CO along with recommendations for approval. Temporary Transfer shall be initially done for a period of 3 months, which is extendable by another 3 months, beyond which no further extension shall be granted. Once the period of temporary transfer is completed, the officer is required to immediately report back to the previous place of posting as mentioned in the order.” 4 9. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 to 3 would submit that the petitioners had also lodged a complaint on the Samadhan Portal, which has already been decided yesterday. 10. In fact, petitioners have no case. They were transferred from various branches of the respondent no.4-Union Bank of India in Dehradun and the transfer was temporary. According to the Bank Service Manual, Clause 7, which is quoted hereinabove, the temporary transfer should have been for a period of three months which is extendable by another three months. By then, petitioners ought to have been sent back at their respective place of posting. It was not done by the respondent no.4-Union Bank of India at the relevant time, which is done now. Petitioners have enjoyed the transfer posting for more than three years. Nothing has been shown that the transfers are in violation of any policy, Rules or Regulation of respondent no.4- Union Bank of India or any guidelines. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition and it deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage. 11. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 26.06.2025 Ravi