CW 1547/2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1547/2010 Hari Shankar Nama & Ors. Versus Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur DATE OF ORDER : 08/02/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. H.V. Nandwana, for petitioner *** Petitioner Nos.1 & 2, as alleged, are President & General Secretary of the Union of Rajasthan Housing Board Employees Welfare Sangh, Kota, which is a registered trade union, as is evident from Ann.1 that includes Kota, Bundi, Jhalawar, Baran, Sawaimadhopur, Karauli and its Head Office at Kota. President & General Secretary of the Union, who are holding the post of Helper & Junior Accountant, after working for sufficient long time at Kota, were transferred to Jhalawar vide order dt.15th December, 2009 Ann.4 & Ann.5 respectively. Counsel submits that both the petitioner nos.1 & 2 are protected workmen as evident from Ann.3 dt.10th June, 2009 which provides certain protection to the workmen in regard to conditions of service referred to u/s.33 of the Act, 1947 and being a protected workman, any prejudicial action taken by the respondents altering their CW 1547/2010 [2] condition of service will be in violation of sub- section (3) of Sec.33 of the Act and in these circumstances, order of transfer of present petitioners, who are protected workmen, is arbitrary and the same deserves to be set aside. Submission made by Counsel is without substance for the reason that Sec.33 of the Act protects conditions of service of workmen and sub-sec.(3) of Sec.33 clearly depicts that no prejudicial action be taken against the protected workmen by altering conditions of service which are applicable before commencement of such proceedings. It is not their case that any proceedings are pending before any Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court and apart from it, present petitioners are Office-bearers of the Union, which includes Districts including Jhalawar as well and if they have been transferred in the interest of administration after remained in Kota for a sufficient long time vide order dt.15th December, 2009, such action of the respondents, in the opinion of this Court, neither contravenes Sec.33 of the Act nor it can be said to be arbitrary which may call for interference. Consequently, this court find no substance in the writ petition, the same stands dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA1547CW2010 8-2.doc