Uttarakhand High Court
Shikha Saini And Others ... vs Union Of India And Others on 26 June, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
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
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
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."
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
