IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35626 of 2010(C) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE COIRFED EMPLOYEES CONGRESS (INTUC), COIRFED, ALAPPUZHA -12, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT A.A. SHUKUR, M.L.A KURUMPELLIL HOUSE, SEA VIEW WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 2. T. MOHANAN, MACHINE ASSISTANT, COIRFED, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER, SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES/DIRECTOR OF COIR DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE COIR MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. NO. 679, COIRFED, ALAPPUZHA - 688 012. 3. THE PRESIDENT, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE COIR MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. NO. 679, COIRFED, ALAPPUZHA - 688 012. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI. K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN, SC, COIRFED THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.35626 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 30th November, 2010 JUDGMENT The first petitioner is a registered trade union of the employees under the Kerala State Co-operative Coir Marketing Federation Limited , Alappuzha (for short `the Coirfed'). The second petitioner is one of its members and he is working as Machine Assistant under the second respondent. This writ petition has been filed mainly challenging Ext.P3 order of transfer. Ext.P3 would reveal that, as per the same, eight Machine Assistants under the second respondent were ordered to be transferred from RCP unit of the Coirfed. The second petitioner is one among them. In this writ petition it is stated that the first petitioner has filed this writ petition in a representative capacity on behalf of the transferee Machine Assistants. According to the first petitioner, all the eight transferees are its members and therefore, the first petitioner can expose their cause. I am afraid, I cannot countenance with the said contention. Evidently, the grievance against Ext.P3 can only be individual grievance. Merely because a group of persons are transferred by a common order that will not change its nature and impact and therefore, unless and until it is successfully challenged by a transferee it will take its effect on that concerned WP(C).No.35626/2010 2 transferee. A writ petition by an association of persons challenging such individual grievances is not maintainable. Merely because the transferees are members of the association will not give locus standi to the association to challenge the order in a representative capacity. Therefore, the first petitioner union cannot be permitted to challenge Ext.P3 order of transfer in a representative capacity. Therefore, the scope of consideration of this writ petition is confined to the question whether the order in Ext.P3 to the extent it orders transfer of the second petitioner is liable to be interfered with or not. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. 3. In view of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition, I do not think it necessary to consider the contentions raised in this writ petition on merits. The second petitioner has already approached the first respondent through Ext.P4 representation raising his objections and grievances against Ext.P3. Various contentions have been raised therein. In view of the fact that the second petitioner has already approached the first respondent and the grievance of the second petitioner highlighted in Ext.P3 is pending consideration before the first respondent, I am inclined WP(C).No.35626/2010 3 to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P4 and pass orders thereon in accordance with law. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, it will only be proper for the second respondent to take a decision whether the second petitioner could be retained at the present station itself till a decision is taken. Till such a decision is taken by the second respondent Ext.P3 order of transfer to the extent it pertains to the second petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS