WP(C) 1899/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. B.D. Das, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. D. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Standing Couns el, representing the respondent/Bank. The petitioner is the All Assam Apex Bank Worker’s Union represented by its Gen eral Secretary. The union is concerned with the order dated 18.3.2011(Annexure - 8), by which the plea of the union that its working president viz. S.N. Bora, Branch Manager being a protected workman cannot be transferred out of the presen t place of posting in Guwahati, has been rejected. The order has been passed pur suant to the order dated 4.2.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6480/2010 which was filed by the union agitating its grievance relating to transfer of its working president said Sri Bora. The writ petition was disposed of by the follo wing order : Heard Mr. B.D. Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P. N. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Apex Bank. The petitioner is the All Assam Apex Bank Workers’ Union represented by its Gene ral Secretary. Its grievance is in respect of transfer of Shri Sarbananda Borah, Branch Manager from Guwahati, to Morigaon. He is the working President of the p etitioner union. Referring to the Annexure- 1 letter dated 18.7.2009 addressed t o the petitioner Union alongwith two other Unions by the Managing Director, it i s the case of the petitioner that the petitioner being a protected workman, is n ot liable to be transferred. In this connection, the petitioner has also referre d to Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit denying the claim of the peti tioner. As per the said affidavit and also as reflected in the aforesaid Annexur e- 1 communication dated 18.7.2009, the proposed norms for transfer and posting was at the proposal stage which according to the respondents has not yet been fi nalized. Further, in the affidavit, the respondents have taken the plea that the petitioner is also not a workman coupled with the fact that his case does not c ome under Section 33 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order dated 15.6.2010 passed by the Managing Director of the Bank, by wh ich the K.K. Kalita, ABM, who was also working President of another Union was pr otected by cancelling the earlier order of transfer. Considering the matter in its entirety, this writ petition is disposed of direc ting the Managing Director of the Bank to look into the grievance of the petitio ner. While doing so, he may also take into account the aforesaid order dated 15. 6.2010 and other relevant factors. Let the grievance of the petitioner be looked into by passing an appropriate ord er within 20.3.2010. Till then, the earlier interim order will continue. Writ petition stands disposed, without however, any order as to costs. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Managing Director of the respondent /Bank h as passed the impugned order dated 18.3.2011. In the order, apart from other th ings it has also been stated that all the transfers including that of the workin g president of the petitioner union have been affected for administrative reason s. It will be appropriate to mention that on the last occasion when the matter w as taken up by this Court on 4.2.2011 towards disposal of the earlier writ petit ion i.e. W.P.(C) No. 6480/2010, the relevant file was perused and no malafide an d/or colourful exercise of power towards issuance of the impugned order of trans fer was discernible. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner upon a reference to Schedule five of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has submitted that there being discrimination in the matter of transfer and the transfer in question being founded on malafid e under the guise of policy of the management, the same is liable to be interfer ed with. In this connection he has referred to Clause - 2(b) and 7 of the 5th Sc hedule of the Act. Clause 2(b) speaks of showing partiality by the employer or granting favour to o ne of several unions attempting to organize its workmen or its members, when suc h a trade union is not a recognized trade union. Be it stated here that the pe titioner’s union is a recognized trade union. Clause 2(7) speaks of transfer of a workman malifide from one place to another under the guise of policy followed by the management. In the writ petition it has been stated that the petitioner’s union has been pic ked up for differential treatment leaving aside the key office bearers of two ot her unions. This plea was raised in the earlier writ petition in reference to on e Sri Kamala Kanta Kalita who was also the working president for sometime of ano ther union. At this stage, Mr. Das, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner submi ts that Sri Kalita’s case was referred to in reference to his length of service at Guwahati. In the impugned order dated 18.3.2011 the Managing Director of the bank has deal t with the above aspect of the matter. It has been stated that the plea of cance llation of transfer order of Sri. Kalita is not factually correct. The order rev eals that Sri Kalita was not given any benefit of protected status while modifyi ng his earlier order of transfer. At the time of modification of the earlier tra nsfer order dated 31.3.2010, Sri Kalita was not holding the post of working pre sident of any union. Moreover his transfer order was also not cancelled rather the same was partially modified by order dated 15.6.2010. It has been recorded in the order that on the basis of the materials on record that as against the c laim of the petitioner that Sri Kalita has been serving at Guwahati for last 28 years, in fact he is at Guwahati for last 10 years only. On the other hand, the working president of the petitioner’s union viz. Sri Bora has been serving at th e present place of posting for the last 25 years. The plea of the petitioner regarding violation of Clause - 2 of the 5th Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has also been dealt with. It has been stat ed that the transfer of said Sri Bora has no connection with the provision in th e said Clause. It has also been stated that the transfer policy of the Bank havi ng not yet been approved, as per Section 2(s) of the Act, Sri Bora cannot get an y protection in terms of Section 33 of the Act. Moreover, such protection is ava ilable only in the event of pendency of any conciliation proceeding. Clause 2 (b) of the 5th Schedule dealing with unfair labour practices by the man agement speaks of partiality shown by the employer. Merely because the working p resident of the petitioner’s union has been transferred it cannot be said that t he petitioner’s union has been discriminated and/or any partiality has been show n. Moreover, the particular provision is applicable where the trade union is not a recognized trade union. So far as the allegation of malafide is concerned, as stated above, the records do not reveal any malafide exercise of power. Moreove r, no particular officer has been pointed out who has allegedly exercised the ma lafide and/or colourful exercise of power. On being asked as to whether a working president of a recognized union cannot be transferred from one place to another under any circumstances, Mr. Das, learned Sr. Counsel could not highlight anything. However, he submits that as a normal practice and procedure being followed in such matter, the office bearers are not transferable. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent/Bank however subm its that such submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not t enable. He also submits that if the petitioner seeks to fall back on the provisi ons of the Industrial Disputes Act, its remedy lies elsewhere and not in invokin g the writ jurisdiction. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to admit the writ petition and consequently the writ petition stands dismissed.