IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 15TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3372 of 2011(V) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. A.D.BOBAN, MACHINE ASSISTANT, COIRFED, ALAPPUZHA-688 012. 2. C.C.RANADEV, MACHINE ASSISTANT, COIRFED, ALAPPUZHA-688 012. 3. T.MOHANAN, MACHINE ASSISTANT, COIRFED, ALAPPUZHA-688 012. 4. V.MANIYAPPAKURUP, MACHINE ASSISTANT, COIRFED, ALAPPUZHA-688 012. 5. SASI R., MACHINE ASSISTANT, COIRFED, ALAPPUZHA-688 012. 6. C.L.ANDREWS, MACHINE ASSISTANT, COIRFED, ALAPPUZHA-688 012. 7. P.S.THANKACHAN, MACHINE ASSISTANT, COIRFED, ALAPPUZHA-688 012. 8. P.A.MATHEW, MACHINE ASSISTANT, COIRFED, ALAPPUZHA-688 012. BY ADVS. SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER, SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR OF COIR DEVELOPMENT/ REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. W.P.(C). NO.3372/2011-V: 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 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI, R2 & R3 BY SRI. GEORGE MATHEW, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 3372 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners who are working as Machine Assistants in the Rubberised Coir Products Unit run by the Kerala State Co-operative Coir Marketing Federation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Coirfed' for short) have filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P3 order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the second respondent and Ext.P7 order dated 11.1.2011 passed by the first respondent By Ext.P3 order, the second respondent, the Managing Director of the Coirfed transferred the petitioners from Rubberised Coir Products Unit, Alappuzha to De-fibering Units of the Coirfed at Mampatta, Thumbur, Anandapuram and Thavam. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed Ext.P4 representation before the Director of Coir Development. They thereafter filed writ petitions in this Court. One among the said writ petitions was W.P.(C) No.36354 of 2010 filed by petitioners 1, 2 and 5 herein. By Ext.P6 judgment delivered on 6.12.2010, a learned single Judge of this Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the Director of Coir Development to consider Ext.P4 representation and pass orders thereon. This Court also directed that till orders are passed on Ext.P4 representation, WPC No.3372/2011 2 Ext.P3 shall be kept in abeyance. Pursuant to the said direction, the Director of Coir Development considered Ext.P4 and passed Ext.P7 order upholding Ext.P3. Hence this writ petition. 2. The main contention raised by the petitioners is that they were recruited and are working as Machine Assistants, that in the De-fibering Units, there is no post of Machine Assistant but only Machine Operator, which is a higher post carrying a higher scale of pay and therefore the petitioners cannot be transferred from the Rubberised Coir Products Unit, Alappuzha to the De-fibering Units. They also allege that the transfer is punitive, arbitrary, malafide, illegal and is motivated by political considerations. 3. The petitioners do not dispute the fact that the Managing Director is competent to order their transfer. Under the certified standing orders of the Coirfed, workmen are liable to be transferred from one post to another, from one department, unit or branch to another, from one type of work to another or from one place or establishment to another, whether at present existing or that may be established in future, according to the exigencies of work. The first respondent has stated in Ext.P3 that De-fibering Units which were lying closed have been renovated and have commenced operation. WPC No.3372/2011 3 Paragraph 3.8 of the certified standing orders of the Coirfed reads as follows: “Every workmen are liable to be transferred from one post to another, from one department, unit or branch to another, from one type of work to another or from one place or establishment to another, whether at present existing or that may be established in future, according to the exigencies of work, without any additional remuneration, either by way of increase in pay or allowance. Workmen are also liable to be transferred to any subsidiary of the Coirfed, whether at present existing or that may be established in future or to any other department formed by splitting up or reorganisation of the Coirfed. Provided that the wages, grade, continuity of service and other conditions of the service of the workmen are not adversely affected by such transfer.” 4. Under the standing orders, the workmen are liable to be transferred from one post to another, from one department, unit or branch to another, from one type of work to another or from one place or establishment to another, whether at present existing or may be established in future, according to the exigencies of work. The standing orders only stipulate that the wages, grade, continuity of service and other conditions of the service of the workmen shall not be adversely affected by such transfer. Therefore the mere fact that the petitioners are transferred from Alappuzha to other stations WPC No.3372/2011 4 is not a ground to interfere with the order of transfer for the reason that they are liable to be transferred. Then the question is whether the petitioners are liable to work as Machine Assistants or as Machine Operators. Ext.P3 discloses that the petitioners have been transferred to work in the De-fibering Units. It does not say that they should work as Machine Operators. Though the petitioners contend relying on Ext.P8 that in the De-fibering Units the post of Machine Operators alone has been sanctioned, I find nothing in the standing orders which would stand in in the way of the management from posting the petitioners in the De-fibering Units. It is for the management to decide whether having regard to the exigencies of work the petitioners should work at Alappuzha or at another station. In the instant case, the petitioners have no case that the Managing Director of Coirfed is incompetent to transfer them. They have also no case that the order of transfer is in violation of the statutory rules. Their only case is that the order of transfer is rested on political considerations. Apart from vague averments, the petitioners have not produced any cogent material which inspires confidence to hold even prima facie that the transfer is the outcome of extraneous considerations. As a matter of fact, the learned standing counsel for WPC No.3372/2011 5 the Coirfed submitted that De-fibering Units were renovated recently and that the services of the petitioners are highly essential for the smooth functioning of the De-fibering Units. The petitioners are well experienced and have more than a decade of experience as Machine Assistants. They are familiar with the functioning of the machinery installed in the De-fibering Units. In such circumstances, I find no merit in the challenge to the impugned orders. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners cannot be transferred from the post of Machine Assistant to the post of Machine Operator, I find nothing in the certified standing orders which prohibits such a transfer. The standing orders stipulates that the workmen are liable to be transferred from one post to another, which will include a post other than the post of Machine Assistant. I accordingly hold that no grounds have been made out warranting interference with the impugned orders. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.3372/2011 6 WPC No.3372/2011 7