Bombay High Court

The Indian Express Ltd. And Ors vs Ganesh Gopinath Rane And Anr on 5 June, 2023

Bench: N. J. Jamadar

2023:BHC-AS:14631

                                                                           4-WP-2438-23.DOC

                                                                            Sayali Upasani


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                   WRIT PETITION NO.2438 OF 2023

             1.     The Indian Express (P) Limited,

                    A Company incorporated under the

                    provisions of the Companies Act, 1956

                    and having its registered office at 7th

                    floor, Mafatlal Centre, Ramnath Goenka

                    Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021.


             2.     Ms. Vaidehi Thakar, of Mumbai

                    Indian Inhabitant, Director of The

                    Indian Express (P) Limited and having

                    its registered office at 7th floor,

                    Mafatlal Centre, Ramnath Goenka

                    Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021.


             3.     Mr. Nitin Jumde, of Pune Indian

                    Inhabitant General Manager of the

                    Indian Express (p) Limited having

                    his office at 1205/2/C, 1st floor,

                    Express House, Shirole, Off J.M.

                    Road, Pune-411 005.                   .... PETITIONERS.

                                                 1/23



                  ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2023                ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 08:58:59 :::
                                                                      4-WP-2438-23.DOC

                   VERSUS

1.     Mr. Ganesh Gopinath Rane,

       Age-42 of Mumbai Indian Inhabitant,

       residing at Room No. 1, Vijay Niwas,

       Jangal Mangal Road, Bhandup (W)

       Mumbai-400078.



2.     Mr. Vivek Gajanan Sagvekar,

       Age-43 of Panvel Indian Inhabitant,

       residing at c/o Shreya Sagvekar,

       Flat No. 404, Swarn Shilp, Plot No. 1032,

       Pal Naka, Panvel,

       Dist. Raigad-410206.                        ....RESPONDENTS




 Mr. Darius Khambata, Senior Counsel, a/w Mr. Amol Joshi,
 Ms. Tejaswi Ghag, Mr. Shivam Singh i/b Poorvi Kamani, for
 Petitioners.
 Ms.     Jane        Cox      i/b   Mr.    Ghanshyam        Thombare,           for
 Respondents.


                                                 CORAM:- N. J. JAMADAR, J.

RESERVED ON:- 5th APRIL, 2023 PRONOUNCED ON:- 5th JUNE, 2023

4-WP-2438-23.DOC

JUDGMENT:-

1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the

consent of the learned Counsel for the parties heard finally.

2) By this Petition the petitioners take exception to an order

dated 28th November, 2022, passed by the learned Member,

Industrial Court at Thane on an application for interim relief

(Exhibit-U-2) in Complaint (ULP) No. 219 of 2022, declaring that

the petitioners engaged in unfair labour practices under items 9

and 10 of Scheduled-IV of The Maharashtra Recognition Of

Trade Unions And Prevention Of Unfair Labour Practices Act,

1971 ("the Act 1971"), and temporarily restraining them from

indulging in such unfair labour practices and staying the orders

dated 7th November, 2022, of deputing the respondent Nos.1 and

2 to the offices at Lucknow and Chandigarh, respectively, till the

final disposal of the complaint.

3) The petition arises in the backdrop of the following facts.

(a) Petitioner No.1 is engaged in Print Media. It publishes,

inter alia, newspapers, "the Indian Express" and "Loksatta".

One of its printing presses is located at Mahape, Navi Mumbai.

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are designated as Senior Printers and

posted at Mahape.

4-WP-2438-23.DOC

(b) Petitioner No.1 asserts, on account of intense competitive

atmosphere in media business and the situation which arose

due to Covid-19 pandemic, the operations at Mahape Printing

Press have been considerably affected and instead of three shifts

work is being carried out thereat in one shift only. In order to

better utilise the workforce, without disturbing the personal and

family life of its employees, the Petitioner No. 1 decided to send

experienced Printers on six months deputation to the printing

presses at other locations. Thus, to best deploy available

resources and have smooth and effective operations, under an

order dated 7th September, 2022, Respondent No. 1 was deputed

to work at Lucknow press with effect from 15th November, 2022.

Likewise the respondent No. 2 was deputed to work at

Chandigarh press. The petitioners made provisions for

reimbursement of the travel expenses, suitable accommodation

at the places to which respondent Nos.1 and 2 have been

ordered to be deputed and deputation allowance of Rs.2,000/-,

per month.

deputation orders, lodged a complaint of unfair labour practices

under items 3, 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule-IV of the Act 1971,

4-WP-2438-23.DOC

alleging, inter-alia, that the orders were in effect transfers

disguised as deputation.

(d) It was alleged that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 were being

victimized for having lodged an earlier complaint being

complaint (ULP) No.160 of 2022. In the said complaint by an

order dated 19th September, 2022, the Industrial Court had

directed the petitioner - employer to give seven days advance

notice to complainants therein before they were transferred. Yet,

under two months of the said interim order, by the impugned

order, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were sought to be displaced

and harassed under the guise of deputation as the employer

could not have effected the transfer of respondent No.1 and 2.

The action was, thus, clearly mala fide and also with an oblique

motive to circumvent the interim order passed by the Industrial

Court in complaint (ULP) No.160 of 2022.

(e) It would be contextually relevant to note that, in complaint

(ULP) No.160 of 2022, the principal grievance of the

complainants therein was that the employer was interfering in

the union activities and elections and had made an endavour to

influence the election so that the Union was represented by

pliant representatives.

4-WP-2438-23.DOC

(f) In the complaint, respondent No.1 and 2 moved an

application for interim relief, seeking stay to the deputation

order dated 7th November, 2022.

(g) The petitioners resisted the application for interim relief by

filing an affidavit-in-reply. It was categorically denied that the

deputation order was issued either to circumvent the interim

order passed in complaint (ULP) No.160 of 2022, or to victimise

the respondent Nos.1 and 2. It was contended that, deputation

was necessitated by business exigency. Deputation did not

amount to transfer. Neither there were any change in the duties,

which the respondent Nos.1 and 2 were discharging at Mahape.

Nor any change in the conditions of service.

4) The learned Member Industrial Court after appraisal of

the pleadings, material on record and import of the order

passed in complaint (ULP) No. 160 of 2022, was persuaded to

hold that a prima-facie case of unfair labour practice was made

out and the respondents-employees were entitled to interim

protection. The learned Member was of the view that the

deputation order was issued under two months of the interim

order passed in complaint (ULP) No.160 of 2022, and it appeared

to have been issued as a retaliatory measure to the lodging of

the said complaint. In the wake of the allegations of the

4-WP-2438-23.DOC

employer interfering with the employees Union election. It was

further held that by way of deputation, the respondent Nos.1

and 2 were professed to be assigned duties of Administrative or

Supervisory nature at a distant place. In substance, though the

learned Member reckoned that the deputation ordinarily does

not amount to transfer, yet, in the backdrop of the

circumstances of the case, an element of victimization was

prima-facie made out. Holding thus, the Industrial Court stayed

the effect and operation of the deputation Orders.

5) Being aggrieved the petitioners have invoked the writ

jurisdiction.

6) An affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1

and 2 in support of the impugned order.

7) I have heard Mr. Khambata, the learned Senior Counsel

for the petitioners, and Ms. Jane Cox, the learned Counsel for

respondent Nos.1 and 2 at some length. With the assistance of

learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the material

on record including the orders passed by the industrial court.

8) Mr. Khambata submitted that the learned Member

Industrial Court misdirected himself in staying the deputation

orders despite recording that deputation ordinarily does not

amount to transfer. Mr. Khambata strenuously submitted that

4-WP-2438-23.DOC

deputation of an employee to meet the business exigencies is

within the province of the authority of an employer and,

ordinarily, is not susceptible to interference by Courts and

Tribunals. In the case at hand, according to Mr. Khambata, the

circumstances did not warrant interference by the industrial

court. Amplifying the submission Mr. Khambata would urge

that, firstly, the ground of victimization for lodging complaint

(ULP) No. 160 of 2022, could not have been pressed into service

as admittedly respondent No.2 was not one of the complainants

and, thus, no case on that count could have been

countenanced.

9) Secondly, according to Mr. Khambata, the learned

member Industrial Court was in error in observing that there

was change in the nature of duties and the respondents were

being called upon to discharge administrative or supervisory

duties, while they are posted as Senior Printers.

10) Thirdly, victimization could not have been attributed to the

petitioners as the other employees had been sent on deputation

prior to the respondent Nos.1 and 2, and, on account of the

impugned order, in place of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, other

employees have been deputed. In any event, according to Mr.

Khambata, the foundational premise of the alleged interference

4-WP-2438-23.DOC

by the management in the affairs of the Union is unsustainable

as it was essentially a dispute between two groups of the

employees. Therefore, on none of the grounds the order of the

Industrial Court deserves to be sustained.

11) Per contra, Ms. Cox, learned counsel for the respondent

Nos.1 and 2 submitted that there is no such perversity in the

impugned order, which would warrant interference in exercise of

writ jurisdiction. The learned Member Industrial Court has

ascribed justifiable reasons for grant of interim relief. Such

order is not susceptible to interference in exercise of extra

ordinary jurisdiction, especially where the Industrial Court has

exercised the discretion in favour of the employees, submitted

Ms. Cox.

12) Ms. Cox urged with tenacity that the instant proceeding

can not be appreciated independent of and disjointed from the

allegations in the complaint (ULP) No.160 of 2022. A clear case

of interference in the Union activity was made out, which

impelled the same learned Member Industrial Court to grant

interim relief in that complaint. Since the management was

restrained from transferring the complainants therein without

seven days prior notice, the management resorted to seemingly

innocuous device of deputation but equally effective in

4-WP-2438-23.DOC

displacing and harassing the respondent Nos.1 and 2,

submitted Ms. Cox.

13) Controverting the submissions on behalf of the Petitioners

that there was exigency of the situation, Ms. Cox would urge

that the work professed to be assigned to respondent Nos. 1 and

2 at the place of deputation detracts materially from the said

claim. The duties which the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are to

perform at the place of deputation, are distinctly administrative

and supervisory in nature and bear no co-relation to duties of

the Senior Printers, now being performed by respondent Nos. 1

and 2 at Mahape. Therefore, the learned Member Industrial

Court was fully justified in staying the effect and operation of

the impugned deputation order, submitted Ms. Cox.

14) Ms. Cox would further urge that there can be no

deputation at different offices under the same employer. At any

rate such deputation can not be without the consent of the

deputationist. To bolster up this submission, Ms. Cox placed a

strong reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of

Ms. Sarita Singh Vs. M/s. Shree Infosoft Private Limited 1.

15) I have carefully considered the rival submissions canvased

across the bar. Few uncontroverted facts deserve to be noted to

1 2022 SCC Online SC 65.

4-WP-2438-23.DOC

narrow down the controversy. Indisputably, respondent Nos.1

and 2 are presently posted at Mahape as Senior Printers. There

is not much controversy over the fact that a complaint (ULP)

No.160 of 2022, was lodged alleging unfair labour practice under

the Act, 1971, and in the said complaint an interim order came

to be passed on 19th September, 2022, directing the employer to

give seven days clear notice before effecting any transfer.

16) It would contextually relevant to note that the fact that

respondent No.2 is not the complainant therein could not be

contested. However, an affidavit is affirmed by respondent No.2,

in this Petition that he was also present in the meeting held to

elect the office bearers of the Union on 8 th August, 2022, and

had objected to the election of the officer bearers who, according

to respondent Nos.1 and 2, are pliant. Issue and service of the

deputation orders dated 7th November, 2022, deputing the

respondent No.1 at printing press Lucknow and Chandigarh,

respectively, are not in dispute.

17) As considerable submissions were canvased on the alleged

change in the nature of duties and the terms of orders of

deputation, it may be necessary to extract the relevant part of

the order, in respect of Ganesh Rane, respondent No. 1. It reads

as under:-

4-WP-2438-23.DOC

"This is to inform you that you have been deputed to Lucknow Press in the Rotary Department for a period of six months beginning from 15/11/2022 due to exigencies of work. Your key result areas during your deputation are:

(a) Monitoring the quality of product and ensure deadlines are met.

(b) Work towards improving the quality in terms of density, registration and ink control of the product.

(c) To ensure proper make ready checks to reduce start up waste and also time in between chageovers.

(d) Strive to achieve/improve and maintain print waste target.

(e) Identify recurring problem affecting smooth production and minimizing them in coordination with the maintenance team.

Please find below the Lucknow Press address. The Indian Express (P) Ltd 1/8, Vivekkhand, Gomati Nagar, Lucknow-226010 "

18) The orders further provide that the respondent Nos.1 and

2 would be entitled to receive deputation allowance of

Rs.2,000/-per month, along with monthly salary, and their

traveling expenses would be reimbursed and suitable

accommodation would be also provided to them. It was further

added that 'all other terms and conditions of the service of

respondent Nos.1 and 2 would remain unchanged'.

19) Respondent No.1 was initially appointed as trainee "Semi-

Skilled Baller" with effect from 1 st April, 2003. Respondent No.2

was initially appointed as "Senior Semi-Skilled Baller" with

4-WP-2438-23.DOC

effect from 1st December, 2006. It is incontrovertible that

transfer to any place / department in India in any of Petitioner

No.1's office, associate concern or publication or allied offices

then in existence or to be established later, was an express term

of employment of both Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the respective

appointment orders.

20) In the context of the express term of transferability, the

challenge to the order of deputation as a mala fide exercise and

an instrument of victimization deserves to be appreciated. The

broad submission on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 that

the impugned orders dated 7th November, 2022, are, in effect,

transfers and not "deputation", deserves to be considered first.

21) On first principles, in my view, the said challenge does not

carry much conviction in the face of an express term of

transferability. If an employee can, under the terms of the

contract, be transferred to any place in India, a fortiorari the

employee can be posted by way of deputation. Nonetheless, the

challenge deserves to be appreciated on the anvil of juridical

connotation of the term, "deputation".

22) In the case of Ms. Sarita Singh (supra), the Supreme

Court after adverting to the previous pronouncements in the

4-WP-2438-23.DOC

cases of State of Punjab Vs. Inder Singh2, Umapati Choudhary

Vs. State of Bihar3 and Union of India Vs. S.N. Maithy 4, in which

the juridical connotation of the term, "deputation" was

expounded, enunciated that a deputation was a tripartite

consensual agreement between the lending employer, borrowing

employer and the employee. Specific rights and obligations

would bind the parties and govern their conduct. A transient

business visit without any written agreement detailing terms of

deputation will not qualify as a deputation unless the

respondent were to lead cogent evidence to indicate that the

appellant was seconded to work overseas on deputation.

23) The aforesaid observations were made in the backdrop of

the peculiar facts of the said case wherein the appellant therein

was sued by the employer for having tendered resignation within

a certain period of her overseas stint for a period of 82 days, as

under the terms of the contract appellant therein was required

to serve the respondent-company for a certain period depending

upon the period of overseas deputation.

24) In the case of Inder Singh (Supra), the question before the

Supreme Court was whether the Police personnel who were on

2 (1997) 8 SCC 372 3 (1999) 4 SCC 659 4 (2015) 4 SCC 164

4-WP-2438-23.DOC

deputation with CID Punjab Police for years together should be

permitted to be repatriated to their parent cadre, on a relatively

lower position. In that context, the Supreme Court expounded

the concept of 'deputation' as under :-

"....18. The concept of "deputation" is well understood in service law and has a recognised meaning. 'Deputation' has a different connotation in service law and the dictionary meaning of the word 'deputation' is of no help. In simple words 'deputation' means service outside the cadre or outside the parent department. Deputation is deputing or transferring an employee to a post outside his cadre, that is to say, to another department on a temporary basis. After the expiry period of deputation the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the same position unless in the meanwhile he has earned promotion in his parent department as per Recruitment Rules. Whether the transfer is outside the normal field of deployment or not is decided by the authority who controls the service or post from which the employee is transferred. There can be no deputation without the consent of the person so deputed and he would, therefore, know his rights and privileges in the deputation post. The law on deputation and repatriation is quite settled as we have also seen in various judgments which we have referred to above. There is no escape for the respondents now to go back to their parent departments and working there as Constables or Head Constables as the case may be....."

25) In the case of Umapati Choudhary (supra), the question

before the Supreme Court was, whether the appellant therein

should be treated as a permanent employee of the Bihar

Sanskrit Shiksha Board or he was on deputation to the Board

from Kameshwar Sirigh Darbhanga Sanskrit University. While

4-WP-2438-23.DOC

answering the question in favour of the appellant and treating

him to be a permanent employee of the Board, the Supreme

Court explained the import of the term 'deputation' as under :-

"....8. Deputation can be aptly described as an assignment' of an employee ( commonly referred to as the deputationist) of one department or cadre or even an organisation (commonly referred to as the parent department or lending authority) to another department or cadre or organisation (commonly referred to as the borrowing authority). The necessity for sending on deputation arises in public interest to meet the exigencies of public service. The concept of deputation is consensual and involves a voluntary decision of the employer to lend the services of his employee and a corresponding acceptance of such services by the borrowing employer. It also involves the consent of the employee to go on deputation or not. In the case at hand all the three conditions were fulfilled...."

26) In the case of S N Maity (Supra), the distinction between

"transfer on deputation" and "appointment on deputation" was

adverted to, by the Supreme Court, and the following

observations were made:

"15. The controversy that has emerged in the instant case is to be decided on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles of law. We have already opined that it is not a case of simple transfer. It is not a situation where one can say that it is a transfer on deputation as against an equivalent post from one cadre to another or one department to another. It is not a deputation from a Government Department to a Government Corporation or one Government to the other. There is no cavil over the fact that the post falls in a different category and the 1st respondent had gone through the whole gamut of selection. On a studied scrutiny, the notification of appointment makes it absolutely clear that it is a tenure posting and the fixed tenure is five years unless it is

4-WP-2438-23.DOC

curtailed. But, a pregnant one, this curtailment cannot be done in an arbitrary or capricious manner. There has to have some rationale. Merely because the words 'until further orders' are used, it would not confer allowance on the employer to act with caprice...."

27) The aforesaid pronouncements, with respect, were

rendered in a completely different fact-situations. Undoubtedly,

the connotation of the term, "deputation' in service law, was

expounded in each of the aforesaid cases. Few broad features of

deputation were spelled out. However, it would be difficult to

accede to the broad submission that there can be no deputation

at a different office, simplocitor, under the same management. It

does not seem to be an immutable rule that the deputation

must be to an establishment under a different employer. In my

view, the concept of "deputation" is elastic enough to cover, in its

fold, even a case where an employee is deputed to work at

another office under the control of the same management.

Thus, the primary challenge sought to be raised by Ms. Cox

does not merit acceptance.

28) This takes me to the aspect of alleged victimization. The

learned Member, Industrial Court was of the view that since the

impugned order of deputation came to be issued under two

months of the interim order passed in complaint (ULP) No. 160

of 2022, it prima facie appeared to be an exercise in

4-WP-2438-23.DOC

circumvention of the said order and, thus, amounted to

victimization.

29) Mr. Khambata endeavored to draw home the point that

since respondent No.2 was not the complainant in complaint

(ULP) No. 160 of 2022, the said impugned deputation order

could not have been interdicted on that ground. I am not

persuaded to take such a technical view of the matter. Since

respondent No.1 was indubitably one of the complainants in the

said complaint and respondent No.2 has affirmed an Affidavit

joining the cause with the complainants in the said complaint, I

deem it appropriate to deal with the substance of the challence

to the deputation.

30) It is a common ground that the genesis of the said

complaint (ULP) No. 160 of 2022, was the alleged interference by

the management in the election to the employees Union. A

specific allegation is made that the petitioner No.3 - General

Manager of petitioner No.1 declared himself as the Election

Officer and, ignoring the objections of the rest of the employees,

declared that only eleven nominations were received and office

bearers were elected unopposed.

31) This allegations, even if taken at par, in my view, relate to

a matter of moment. There is substance in the submission of

4-WP-2438-23.DOC

Mr. Khambata that the disputes were essentially between the

groups of employees. Having regard to the nature of the dispute,

it would be difficult to sustain the allegation of mala fide for a

length of time. Moreover, the grievance raised by the

complainants as regards to the election came to be rejected by

the Sub-Registrar under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act,

1946, by an order dated 28th March, 2023. Thus, prima facie, in

the context of a dispute between the group of employees over the

rival claims to the office beararship of the Union, mala fide can

hardly be attributed to the management.

32) Ms. Cox would then urge that the duties which the

respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were supposed to discharge at the

place of deputation are primarily of administrative or

supervisory nature. Inviting the attention of the court to

Schedule - III of the Order dated 11 th November, 2011 issued by

the Government of India after Acceptance of the Majithia Wage

Boards Grouping of Non-Journalist Newspaper Employees-

Factory Staff, it was urged that the Senior Printers and

Supervisors are distinct posts and their duties are not

interchangeable.

33) Mr. Khambata, on the other hand, would urge that the

Senior Printers and Supervisor are included in one and the

4-WP-2438-23.DOC

same group and a Senior Printer is excepted to supervise the

printing machines. Therefore, according to Mr. Khambata, there

is no change in the duties, which the respondent Nos. 1 and 2

would be required to perform post deputation.

34) The duties under the caption 'key results area', in the

deputation order, are extracted above. On a careful perusal of

the key results areas, which the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are

expected to achieve during the deputation, one gets an

impression that the articulation is of efficient discharge of the

duties. The underlying theme is quality control and efficient

output.

35) I find it rather difficult to agree with the submissions that

the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are called upon to discharge

administrative or supervisory functions far detached from the

work, which the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 now perform as Senior

Printers.

36) The conspectus of the aforesaid consideration is that,

prima facie, the order of deputation does not seem to be

actuated by mala fide. The learned Member Industrial Court lost

sight of the pivotal fact that transferability was an essential

term of employment. The deputation, in the circumstances of

4-WP-2438-23.DOC

the case, appeared to be in pursuit of the optimum and better

utilization of the available resources.

37) The learned Member also lost sight of the fact that the

respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were no singled out and discriminatory

treatment was meted out to them. Petitioners have affirmed that

two Senior Printers, Mr. Vaibhav Palav and Mr. Sharad Pawar

had been transferred to Chandigadh and Lucknow, respectively,

and were reposted at Mahape.

38) The duration of deputation was also not adequately

considered by the learned Member Industrial Court. The

deputation for a short period to meet the exigency of the

situation can be said to be a normal incidence of employment.

In any event, to rule out the possibility of the respondent Nos. 1

and 2 being displaced for a long period under the guise of

deputation, the petitioners were directed to file an affidavit.

Thereupon an affidavit is filed by the petitioner No. 2.

39) The petitioner No. 2 has affirmed that the respondent Nos.

1 and 2 and such other employees at Mahape establishment/

printing press who are/ shall be sent on deputation for a period

not exceeding six months to other industrial

establishments/printing presses of the Petitioner No.1-

company, their term of "deputation" would not be extended and

4-WP-2438-23.DOC

at the end of the period of deputation, those persons shall

return to their duties at Mahape establishment/printing press.

40) At this juncture, a reference to the judgment of this Court

in the case of Vidyut Metallics Pvt Ltd Vs. Maharashtra Rajya

Rashtriya Kamgar Sangh and Another5 may be necessary. In the

said case, it was observed that it is an inherent power of the

employer to depute its employees to meet specific exigencies and

so long as the said deputation is not being ordered to transfer

the employees under the guise of managerial authority, there

was no case to interfere with the order of deputation.

41) The upshot of aforesaid consideration is that the learned

Member Industrial Court committed an error in restraining

Petitioners from giving effect to the order of deputation for a

period of six months. Since the discretion was exercised on an

incorrect premise and without correctly appreciating the legal

position, interference is warranted in exercise of writ

jurisdiction. Hence, the Petition deserves to be allowed.

42)         Thus, the following order.

                                          -:ORDER:-

      i)       The Petition stands allowed.

      ii)      The impugned order stands quashed and set aside.

5 (2002) 2 LLJ 829





                                                             4-WP-2438-23.DOC

iii)     If the petitioners still consider it to be necessary

to depute the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, in accordance

with the orders dated 7th November, 2022, the

respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall be given 15 days time to

join at the place of deputation.

iv) In that eventuality, the petitioners shall abide

by the undertaking in the affidavit of petitioner No. 2

dated 30th March, 2023 that the deputation of any

employee will not be extended beyond six months and

they will be reposted at Mahape Printing Press after

the end of six months deputation.

v) It is hereby made clear that this order shall not

construed as an authority to the petitioners to post