IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27020 of 2006 Between: 1 G. Rama Devi, D/o. G. Ramakrishna Rao, Editorial Mofussil Desk, Andhra Prabha, H.No. 1-1-336/116, Viveknagar, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad - 500 020. 2 B. Surender, s/o. B. Yellaiah, Editorial General Desk, Andhra Prabha, R/o. H.No. 1-2- 606/28, Bandamisa Nagar, Near Indira Park, Hyderabad - 500 080. 3 K. Kishan Goud, S/o. K. Ganga Goud, Andhra Prabha, R/o. H.No. 37-28, Jagadgirigutta, Near IDPL Colony, Balanagar, Hyderabad - 500 037. 4 Syed Jafer Ali, S/o. Syed Baker Ali, R/o. 10-4-771/157, Mahatma Gandhi Nagar, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 028. 5 S. Venkat Ramana Rao, S/o. S. Bhadraiah, Andhra Prabha, R/o. 6-5-244/10, Chacha Nehru Nagar, Bhoiguda, Secunderabad - 500 029. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Labour, Employment, Training & Factories (Lab-) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500 022. 2 The Commissioner of Labour, Andhra Pradesh, Anjaiah Bhavan, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad - 500 020. 3 Express Publications (Madurai) Limited, Rep by its Chairman and Managing Director - Sri Sonthalia, Registered Office : Express Estate, Mound Road, Madras - 600 002. 4 Andhra Prabha Management of Vasavi Communications Ltd. Rep by its Executive Director, H.No. 6-3-4, Prem Nagar, Road No. 1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, to declae the impugned posting cum transfer orders dated 28-9-2006 as also the subsequent clarifying transfer orders dated 09-10-2006 issued by the 4th Respondent herein to the petitioners-workmen and the inaction and non-consideration by the 1st and 2nd respondent herein as wholly arbitrary, unjust, violative of fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 14 of the petitioners and as such ab initio void; award costs to the writ petitioners and pass any such order or further orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.I.MALLIKARJUNA SHARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27020 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioners were employed by the 4th respondent herein. On account of a lock out brought about by the 4th respondent, the petitioners and certain others remained out of employment. The Convener, Andhra Prabha Employees’ Unions espoused the cause of its Members and the appropriate Government referred the dispute to Labour Court-I, Hyderabad. It is being adjudicated as I.D.No.174 of 2004. The petitioners got themselves impleaded in the I.D and ﬁled I.A.No.303 of 2005 with a prayer to direct the 4th respondent to provide them employment, since they have been deprived of their livelihood and duty, on account of the lock out. The application was opposed by the 4th respondent on several grounds, including maintainability. Through its order, dated 11.09.2006, the Labour Court allowed the I.A. and directed the 4th respondent to permit the petitioners to perform duties with immediate eﬀect. It was also directed that in the event of default, the 4th respondent shall be under obligation to pay the last drawn salary on or before 5th of every month. The petitioners reported to duty on 27.09.2006. On the next day i.e, 28.09.2006, the 4th respondent passed individual orders taking the petitioners into service, but transferring them to its various branches in other parts of the State. This writ petition is ﬁled challenging the said orders. Sri I.Mallikarjuna Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners had made extensive arguments, stating that the action of the 4th respondent in transferring the petitioners to diﬀerent places amounts to victimization. He submits that the Labour Court itself observed in its order passed in the I.A. that the 4th respondent shall admit the petitioners into service, without victimizing them; and despite the same, the 4th respondent had victimized the petitioners by transferring them to far oﬀ places. Sri S.Ravindranath, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that no relief was granted against his client and the writ petition is not maintainable against him. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent, Sri N.Krishna Rao, raised an objection as to the very maintainability of the writ petition. He contends that entertaining an I.A. ﬁled by individual employees was itself an extra-ordinary measure and to avoid further litigation in the matter, the 4 th respondent has taken the petitioners into service. It is also stated that inasmuch as there were no vacancies at Hyderabad, the petitioners are to be transferred to the units at other places. It is not doubt true that this Court has the jurisdiction to issue a writ, against a private individual also. Much would depend upon the nature of relief sought and the type of violation complained of. A writ petition cannot be a panacea for every complaint, particularly against the agencies, which do not ﬁt into the deﬁnition of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have rightly approached the Labour Court seeking the relief of their being taken into service and the Labour Court had granted such a relief. The narrow controversy is as to the justiﬁcation on the part of the 4th respondent in transferring the petitioners to distant places. The question as to whether such an act on the part of the 4th respondent amounts to victimization, is a matter, which needs to be examined by the Labour Court itself. There is no reason to believe that the Labour Court either would not entertain the application or would not examine the matter on merits, in case, the petitioners approach it. As a matter of fact, the Labour Court alone is vested with the power to undertake such an exercise. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to approach the Labour Court, with an appropriate application, seeking necessary relief, in this regard. As and when such an application is ﬁled, the Labour Court shall deal with the same on its own merits and dispose it of, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of presentation. This Court granted interim order in favour of the 1s t petitioner, enabling her to continue in the oﬃce of the 4th respondent at Hyderabad. This arrangement shall continue till the Labour Court disposes of the application. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 01.09.2008 Note: Issue C.C. in three days. (B/o) JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27020 of 2006 Date: 01.09.2008 JSU