IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5845 of 2005 M/S BENNETT, COLEMAN & CO.LTD. THRU.S.K.BAGCHI & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 06/ 07-07-2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.9.2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No. 2705(M) 2004 whereby and whereunder he has taken cognizance against the petitioners under Section 25(U) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Shortly stated the case of Complainant-O.P. No. 2 is that he received complaint from Bihar Shramjivi Patrakar Union that one of their members Sri Lal Ratnakar, an employee of the petitioner’s company, has been illegally transferred from Patna to Purnea even though he was a protected workman. The Opposite Party No. 2 on the basis of the said complaint started enquiry and directed the petitioners to cooperate in the matter and reconciliate the same but they did not participate. During course of enquiry the Opposite Party No. 2 found that Sri Ratnakar was appointed as a Sub Editor with the petitioners at their Patna Establishment and despite the fact that there was no post of Sub Editor at Purnea he was illegally transferred in violation of Section 25-T read with Section 25(U) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The petitioners had informed the Opposite Party No. 2 that the action against Sri Ratnakar was taken in course of routine administrative 2 decision and there was nothing illegal in the same. The Opposite Party No. 2 considered the action of the management to be a violation of law under the Industrial Dispute Act, and accordingly, the present Complaint was filed before the C.J.M. for taking action under the law. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on receipt of the Complaint petition took cognizance against the petitioners as prayed under Section 25(U) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that Mr. Lal Ratnakar was appointed by the Company (petitioner no. 1) as Sub Editor for its newspaper ‘The Times of India’ on 01-09-1987. Considering the Company’s requirements he was given the responsibility for reporting and was also re-designated as Sub Editor- cum-Reporter on 26.02.1999. It has further been contended that considering the Company’s business plans, the work exigencies, the suitability for the reporting assignments and as per the provisions of certified standing orders he was transferred as Sub Editor-cum- Reporter to Purnea, a place having importance from the point of view of news-gathering/reporting. The said transfer was as per the terms of the appointment. Sri Lal Ratnakar did not take his transfer to Purnea in the right spirit because of his convenience/liking and challenged the same before the Labour Department through Bihar Working Journalist Union mainly claming that since there was no office in Purnea and his appointment was as a Sub Editor, and therefore, he could not be transferred to Purnea. He also claimed that he was a protected workman and there was no rule to transfer him out of Patna. 3 Learned counsel contended that Sri Lal Ratnakar did not join at Purnea although he was relieved from Patna office on 30.4.1999. Learned counsel further contended that the action taken by the Company was a bonafide one and the same was as per the work exigencies. He contended that the action of the management can in no way be called an unfair labour practice. Learned counsel contended that a detailed conciliation was also held and after conciliation the transfer of Mr. Ratnakar from Patna to Purnea was withdrawn on 29.09.2000 and he was transferred to Muzaffarpur according to his choice but he did not even join at Muzaffarpur and adopted raising baseless issues. He further contended that the action of Sri Ratnakar compelled the management to take disciplinary action against him and he was dismissed from services of the Company by order dated 07.02.2002 which was duly communicated to him. Learned counsel thus contended that the action of the management cannot be called as unfair labour practice. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party though opposed the application but conceded that on the basis of allegations no case of unfair labour practice is made out. There is nothing in the complaint petition to show that transfer of Sri Lal Ratnakar from Patna to Purnea was a malafide action of the Company. On the other hand, the same indicates that the management looking at the demand of work had transferred Sri Ratnakar from Patna to Purnea on 29.04.1999 as Sub Editor-cum- Reporter. It appears that later on after conciliation the said order of 4 transfer from Patna to Purnea was recalled and Sri Ratnakar was transferred to Muzaffarpur but he did not join at Muzaffarpur. This compelled the management to take disciplinary action against him and accordingly Sri Lal Ratnakar was dismissed from service on 07.02.2002. There is nothing to show that the order of transfer was made with some malafide action. Therefore, on the basis of allegations no case of unfair labour practice is made out. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this application is allowed and the order of cognizance as against the petitioners is quashed. S.Sb/- (Madhavendra Saran, J.)