HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 20534 of 2009 Date: 14.12.2009 Between: G.A.Rudrappa, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And Airports Authority of India, Rep., by its Chairman, New Delhi and 3 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 20534 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioner herein joined the services of the Airports Authority of India as Fire operator in the year 1982. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Senior Superintendent Fire Services and while working as such in Hyderabad Airport at Begumpet, by order dated 11.06.2009 he was transferred to Madurai with immediate effect. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the General Secretary of Indian Airports, Kamagr Union. When the Begumpet Airport was sought to be closed down due to opening of a new Airport at Shamshabad and there was a proposal to transfer the excess manpower as per transfer guidelines, the Indian Airports Kamgar Union, represented by the petitioner, raised a dispute before the 4th respondent-Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) demanding reopening of Begumpet Airport for alternative commercial use. On a request made by the Union, the 4th respondent initiated steps for conciliation and a Settlement was arrived at under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the I.D. Act’) on 24.08.2009 between the Management of the Airports Authority of India and the workmen Unions. As per the terms of the Settlement, it was agreed by the Management that round the clock shift duties (24 hours) shall be arranged as per the practice for the workmen of the operational category with immediate effect. It is to be noticed that the impugned order of transfer dated 11.06.2009 was passed during the pendency of the Conciliation proceedings. However, the 4th respondent advised the Management to keep in abeyance the transfer order of the four workmen, including the writ petitioner, and accordingly the impugned order of transfer was not given effect to pending the conciliation proceedings. Thereafter, vide proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 17.09.2009, the petitioner was relieved of his duties at Hyderabad on the afternoon of 18.09.2009 on transfer to Madurai Airport. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed contending inter alia that the impugned order dated 17.09.2009 relieving the petitioner from Hyderabad was contrary to the Settlement dated 24.08.2009. It is contended that whereas the manpower required as per the Settlement for three shift duties round the clock is 56, the staff available at Begumpet Airport, including the petitioner, is only 42 and therefore there is no need to transfer the petitioner to Madurai. It is also the specific case of the petitioner that if the Settlement dated 24.08.2009 is implemented, there will be no excess staff at Begumpet Airport and consequently the transfer of the petitioner is unwarranted. While pointing out that in W.P.No.4950 of 2008 and batch a Division Bench of this Court had recorded the statement of respondents 1 to 3 that no action would be taken effecting the services of any of the employees existing as on the date of opening of the new Airport or closure of the existing one, it is further contended that it is not open to the respondents 1 to 3 now to contend that the transfer is inevitable on the ground of excess manpower. It is also contended that since the petitioner as the General Secretary of Airports Authority Karmgar Union has been espousing the cause of the employees, his transfer to a different place is unjustified. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent it is stated that the petitioner’s transfer was as per the transfer policy and based on the recommendations of duly constituted transfer committee. It is also submitted that the impugned transfer is according to the administrative exigencies and it has nothing to do with the Settlement arrived at before the Conciliation Officer. It is also explained that the petitioner is working in the Fire Services and on account of the closure of commercials operations at Begumpet Airport, there is a change in the requirement of Fire Services and in order to retain the petitioner into service, he was transferred to Madurai. It is also contended that the Settlement under Section 12 (3) of the Act, was not signed by the authorised representative and therefore it is binding on the 3rd respondent. It is further stated that the excess manpower in Fire Services was redistributed to other stations after the closure of the Begumpet Airport to commercial aviation operations with effect from 23.03.2008. It is further stated that the petitioner is not a protected workman as he is not representing a recognized Union. At any rate, the impugned transfer order is only an administrative order and there is no basis in the allegation that it is by way of victimisation to curb the trade union activity of the petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties in detail. Learned counsel for petitioner, while reiterating the contentions raised in the writ petition, relied upon the decisions in The Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Air Lines Ltd., v. Indian Airlines Technical Assistants Union[1], I.T.C. Ltd., Worker’s Welfare Association v. Management of I.T.C. Ltd.[2], and Manohar Nair v. State of Kerala[3] It is true that in The Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Air Lines Ltd., (1 supra), the Division Bench held that a registered Trade Union, though not recognized under the Code of Discipline, is entitled to make demands and invoke provisions of the I.D. Act. However, the issue involved in this writ petition is whether the petitioner can claim any immunity from transfer on the ground that he is the Secretary of a Employees Union. The respondents are not disputing the petitioner’s entitlement to raise the Industrial Dispute on the ground that it is not a recognized union. There can also be no dispute as to the ratio laid down in I.T.C. Ltd., Worker’s Welfare Association’s case (2 supra) and Manohar Nair’s case (3 supra) that the Settlement reached in course of conciliation proceedings is binding and entitled to due weight and consideration and that that the Settlement cannot be attacked on the ground that the signatory was not competent to represent the Management. I n National Engineering Industries Ltd., v. State of Rajasthan and others[4] it is further held by the Supreme Court that once a settlement is arrived at, a presumption arises that such a Settlement is just and fair and a dispute if any raised as to the validity of the Settlement on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment of facts of corruption can be subject matter of further industrial dispute referable under Section 10 of the I.D. Act. Hence, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents are bound by the Settlement dated 24.08.2009. However, the question is whether the impugned transfer is contrary to the Settlement dated 24.08.2009 as alleged by the petitioner. As per the terms of the Settlement dated 24.08.2009, the Management agreed to arrange round the clock shift duties as per the previous practice for the workmen of the operational category. Admittedly, the petitioner is in Fire Service and according to the respondents the manpower in the Fire Services department is surplus. It is also claimed by the respondents that the impugned transfer is purely on administrative exigencies. Whether the staff available in the Begumpet Airport in Fire Services is surplus and whether there is any need to transfer the petitioner being a pure question of fact cannot be decided by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the absence of a finding by the competent authority that the staff available in Begumpet Airport in Fire Services is not surplus, the impugned transfer cannot be held to be bad on the ground that it is contrary to the Settlement dated 24.08.2009. No other justifiable ground could be made out by the petitioner to hold that the impugned transfer is arbitrary. The law is well settled that the transfer of an employee is only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment and such an order warrants no interference unless it is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision or where the order is found to be without jurisdiction. In State of U.P. and others v. Gobardhan lal[5], the Supreme Court held as under: “A challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the courts or tribunals as though they are Appellate Authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. This is for the reason that courts or tribunals cannot substitute their own decisions in the matter of transfer for that of competent authorities of the State and even allegations of mala fides when made must be such as to inspire confidence in the court or are based on concrete materials and ought not to be entertained on the mere making of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference could ordinarily be made with an order of transfer.” As noticed above, in the instant case, no mala fides are attributed against any of the Officers of the respondents except making a vague allegation that the petitioner being a Union leader was victimised. No other justifiable ground could be made out to show that the impugned order is contrary to law. For the aforesaid reasons, the interference by this Court is unwarranted and accordingly, the Writ Petition is hereby dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI,J. Date: 14.12.2009 Note: Issue C.C. in three days. B/o Klp/gbs [1] 1996(3) ALT 1015 [2] 2002(1) LLJ 848 [3] 996(3) ALT 1015 [4] 2000(1) SCC 371 [5] (2004) 11 SCC 402