Suresh Nandi, a senior journalist in Deccan Herald is the first journalist in the country who has filed a case in Mumbai Industrial/labour court against the improper implementation of the Majithia Wage Board recommendations.
The case is of Suresh Nandi against Deccan Herald in Mumbai Industrial/labour court. He has been transferred from Mumbai to Guwahati after his refusal to give an undertaking to the newspaper management that he would accept far lesser benefits than what has awarded by the Majithia Wage Board – recommendations of which were upheld by the Supreme Court on February 2, 2014.
The Supreme Court, in its verdict, had among other things directed the various newspaper managements that all the arrears upto March 2014 shall be paid to all eligible persons in four equal installments within a period of one year from the date of the order and continue to pay the revised wages from April, 2014.
Nandi has already reported to duty in Guwahati with effect from July 21, 2014, under protest. Notice was served on Deccan Herald, The first hearing of the case was on August 4, 2014. At the first hearing Deccan Herlad sought and got time till August 20, 2014 to file a reply to Nandi’s petition. Second hearing of the case is scheduled for August 20.
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT AT MUMBAI
BEFORE HON'BLE MEMBER
COMPLAINT
(ULP) NO. OF 2014
1.
Suresh Nandi
Age 56 years,
604/D-10, Rutu
Estate CHS,
Patlipada, G. B.
Road,
Thane (West) –
400 607.
2.
Brihanmumbai Union of Journalists ( BUJ )
(A Registered Trade
Union)
Add: 23-25,
Prospect Chambers Annexe,
317, Dr. D. N.
Road,
Mumbai-400 001. …
Complainants
Versus
1.
Deccan Herald
M/s. The Printers (Mysore) Pvt. Ltd.
No. 303, Tulsiani Chambers,
Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021.
2.
Mr. K. N. Tilak Kumar
Joint Managing Director
Deccan Herald
M/s. The Printers (Mysore) Pvt. Ltd.
No. 303, Tulsiani Chambers,
Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021.
3.
Mr. K. Subramanya
Associate Editor
Deccan Herald
M/s. The Printers (Mysore) Pvt. Ltd.
No. 303, Tulsiani Chambers,
Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. … Respondents
COMPLAINT OF UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES UNDER
SECTION 28 READ WITH ITEMS 3 & 9 OF SCHEDULE IV OF THE M.R.T.U. &
P.U.L.P. ACT, 1971
MAY IT
PLEASE THIS HON'BLE COURT:
The Complainants
respectfully submit as under:
1.
The Complainant No. 1 is filing this complaint in the
capacity of a permanent employee of the Respondent No. 1 he has been working as
a Journalist in the Respondent No 1 Newspaper. The Complainant No. 2 is a
registered union of employees of the Respondent No. 1 having Registration No.
BY 11 8975 Mumbai and the Complainant is an ordinary Member of the said
union.
2.
The Respondent No. 1 Company which is in the printing
and publishing business of newspaper in the name and style of a Daily National
Newspaper i.e. Deccan Herald. The office of the Respondent Newspaper is in
Mumbai within the Jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court address mentioned in the
title. The Respondent No. 2 is the Joint Managing Director, who has issued the
Malafide Transfer order dated 21st June, 2014, which has been
challenged in this complaint. The Respondent No. 3 is the Manager Human
Resources who has been pressurizing the Complainant to sign the Memorandum of
Settlement. The Respondents No. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally responsible
for the unfair labour practices against the Complainant and hence due to their
knowledge and involvement in the unfair Labour Practices and facts and circumstances of this case they have
been impleaded as necessary parties.
3.
The Respondents No. 1 to 3 have engaged in and are
engaging in unfair labour practices under Item 3 and 9 of Schedule IV of the
M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 on and from 21st June, 2014, i.e.
the date of mala fide transfer order issued to the Complainant No. 1
transferring his services from Mumbai, Maharashtra to Guwahati, Assam. North
East. The present complaint is being filed within 90 days of the occurrence of
the unfair labour practices. The unfair labour practices engaged in and
continued to be engaged in by the Respondents are as follows:
a)
The Complainant joined the Respondent No. 1 Newspaper
on 15th March, 2007 on a six month probation period as a ‘Special
Correspondent’ vide Letter dated 27-01-2007 for a total pay package of Rs
30,630/-. Hereto annexed and Marked Exhibit
“A” is a copy of the Offer of Employment dated 27-01-2007. After
successful completion of probation the Complainant was Confirmed as a ‘Special
Correspondent’ vide letter dated 28th August 2007 with effect from 15th
September, 2007. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “B” is a
copy of the Complainant’s Confirmation letter dated 28-08-2007. The Complainant
was confirmed as a ‘Special Correspondent’ Journalist in the J- 12 Grade.
b)
The Complainant is a “Working Journalist” as defined under
Section 2 (f) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees
(Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955. By virtue
thereof the Complainant is covered under the definitions of ‘Workman’ under
Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and ‘Employee’ under Section 3(5)
of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971.
c)
The Complainant is working as Working Journalist and
his principle avocation is that of a journalist (Special Correspondent) and he
is not employed in managerial or administrative or supervisory capacity. The
administrative and managerial functions of the Respondent Company are looked
after by the managers and staff of the Respondent No. 1, including the
Respondents No. 2 and 3. The Complainant has no authority to act on behalf of
the Respondent No. 1 Company in any dealings with a third party. The
Complainant has not power to appoint or dismiss / discharge any person or to
take any disciplinary action against any employee of the Respondent No. 1
Company. The Complainant does not supervise or guide or check the work of any
other employee. The predominant nature of the Complainant’s work is to gather
news, attend press conferences, interview important persons, write news
reports, editorials, special stories for the business pages etc. for
publication in the Respondent Newspaper “Deccan Herald”.
d)
The Complainant’s service conditions are governed by
“The Industrial Establishment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946” as applicable to the
Working Journalists. The Complainant is also covered by the various Wage Boards
for Working Journalists.
e)
The Complainants state that the Respondent No. 1
Company is having large circulation as well as revenues from other sources such
as advertising etc. The Complainants shall refer to and rely upon the balance
sheets / profit and loss accounts of the Respondent No. 1 Company as and when
produced.
f)
The Complainant is a hard-working, loyal and diligent
employee and has a clean and meritorious service record. The Complainant has
never faced any complaints, disciplinary action or adverse remarks during his
employment.
g)
The Complainant has been specializing in the business
journalism since 1986. Prior to joining Deccan Herald, the Complainant had
worked in various financial dailies like Business Standard, Financial Express,
United News of India (UNI) and India Today magazine as business journalist.
Even after joining the Respondents, the Complainant has been exclusively
covering finance and business, with emphasis on banking and markets. The
Respondents had other employees covering politics and areas of general
interest. Due to his specialization, the Complainant has always been based in a
metro city like Mumbai. The Respondents had also posted the Complainant only in
Mumbai, as Mumbai is the financial capital of India and most of important
events take place in Mumbai and industrialists, corporate houses, the
authorities related to business are based in Mumbai.
h)
The Government of India constituted two Boards on
24-5-2007 – one for the Working Journalists and the other for Non-Journalist
Newspaper Employees under the chairmanship of Dr. Justice Narayana Kurup. The
Wage Boards were given three years’ time to submit their reports to the Central
Government. Subsequently, Dr. Justice K. Narayana Kurup submitted his
resignation and Justice Gurbax Singh Majithia was appointed as the common
Chairman of the two wage Boards for Working Journalists and other Newspaper
Employees. The Majithia Wage Board’s final recommendations were accepted by the
Central Government and notified on 11-11-2011. The Complainants crave leave to
refer to and rely upon the Majithia Wage Board Award, as and when produced.
i)
The Majithia Wage Board Award was impugned by filing
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2011 by publishing house ABP Pvt. Ltd. &
anr. before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to
uphold the recommendations of the Majithia Wage Board Award by Judgment dated
07-02-2014 and directed that the wages shall be paid as per the Majithia Wage
Board award and that all the arrears upto March 2014 shall be paid to all
eligible persons in four equal instalments within a period of one year from the
date of the order and continue to pay the revised wages from April, 2014. The
Complainant craves leave to refer to and rely upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s
Judgment dated 07-02-2014. The Complainants state that the Respondents are
aware of the said judgment.
j)
The Complainant employee always has been an active
union member and has taken up issues of working journalists and non-journalist
staff with the management of Respondent Company. The Complainant along with the Complainant
No. 2 has been at the forefront of seeking implementation of the Majithia Wage
Board Award w.e.f. 11-11-2011 to the employees of the Respondent No. 1 Company.
The Respondents have not properly implemented the Majithia Wage Board Award.
The employees have not received all increments as per the award. The
Respondents have never explained on what basis the basic salary was calculated.
There is no transparency in the way the Respondents’ have been paying salaries.
The Respondents also do not want to give the arrears from 11-11-2011 and
therefore, have been pressurizing the employees to sign a Memorandum of
Settlement accepting far less arrears than recommended by the Majithia Wage
Board Award.
k)
On 4th June 2014, the Respondents had
circulated a copy of the Memorandum of Settlement, which they wanted the
employees to sign, by sending it to the official email ids of the employees.
The Complainant also received such an email at his official email id
sureshnandi@deccanherald.co.in. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the
email dated 4-6-2014 received by the Complainant No. 1 along with the attached
draft of Memorandum of Settlement.
l)
The Complainant No. 1 objected to the said Memorandum
of Settlement on the ground that it would amount of contempt of Hon’ble Supreme
Court’s judgment. The said Memorandum of Settlement also required the employees
to withdraw support of the union wherever disputes were raised by the unions on
behalf of the employees and also to file applications before the various
courts/authorities/tribunals seeking exclusion from the recommendations of the
Majithia Wage Board award. The Complainant No. 1 further submits that by
signing the said MoU, it would cause severe financial loss to him, as he would
stand to lose arrears alone to the tune of Rs. 8 lacs (as per the Respondents’
calculation). If the increments as recommended by the Award are to be
calculated, this amount increases further. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “D” is a chart showing
the calculation of financial loss to the Complainant. The calculations are
based on the Respondent Company’s own implementation of the Wage award, which
has been implemented with several flaws and shortcomings and is therefore an
estimated amount. The Complainants crave leave to file accurate calculations as
and when required.
m)
The Complainant No. 1 has refused to sign the
Memorandum of Settlement. The Respondents have therefore immediately taken
vindictive action against him by issuing him a Transfer Order dated 21-06-2014
transferring him from Mumbai, Maharashtra to a far flung place of Guwahati,
Assam, w.e.f. 21-07-2014. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the Transfer Order dated 21-06-2014
issued to the Complainant No. 1.
n)
The Complainant
states that as per the various Wage Board awards, a ‘Special Correspondent’ can
be posted only in a Metro centre and admittedly Guwahati is not a Metro. The
Majithia Wage Board Award, which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
has specified in Schedule 1.B (Item 34) that “Special Correspondent means a
person who is accredited to the Central Government and whose regular duties are
to report news of Parliamentary, political or general importance or a person in
a metropolitan centre who specializes in covering news of economic importance
or national or international nature.” By transferring the Complainant to a
non-Metro city like Guwahati, where nothing of economic importance in
comparison with Mumbai is taking place. The Complainant submits that this
clearly shows that his transfer order has nothing to do with business exigency
or organization of the business of the Respondent Company but smacks of
highhandedness and vindictive attitude against the Complainant for his trade
union activities.
o)
The Complainants state that the transfer order dated 21st
June 2014 transferring his services from Mumbai, Maharashtra to Guwahati, Assam
in the far flung North East part of the country is malafide, non-est and
illegal. The impugned transfer orders issued to the Complainant No. 1 under the
guise of following management policy is devoid of any merit as it does not
speak of any business exigency. Hence the Respondents have engaged in and are
engaging in unfair labour practices under Item 3 of Schedule IV the M.R.T.U.
& P.U.L.P. Act, 1971.
p)
The additional and alternate grounds under which the
Complainant is challenging the Transfer order dated 21-6-2014 are as under:
(i)
The Complainant states that he is at the fag end of his
employment and has only 21 months left in the Company, as per his service
conditions the Complainant is due for Superannuation in March 2016. There is no
bonafide reason to dislocate the Complainant from Mumbai where he has been
working ever since he joined the Respondent Newspaper in 2007.
(ii) The
real reason for transferring the Complainant to such a faraway place in the
North East is because he refused to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
sent to the Complainant by Email by Respondent No 3. The Respondents wanted the
Complainant to sign on the dotted line giving up the benefits of the Majithia
Wage Board which had been upheld by the Apex Court. The Respondents as per this
order were directed to pay Arrears to all the Journalists including the
Complainant vide order dated 7th February 2014.
(iii)
If the Complainant is to accept the MOU and agree to
forfeit the benefits of the Majithia Award, he would also get a lower Gratuity
and his statutory retirement benefits such as Provident Fund. Copies of both
pre and post-award payslips have been annexed hereto as Exhibit “F” and “G”,
respectively, and will be relied on during the arguments. It is pertinent to
note that the MOU seeks to reduce the Gratuity from the original 26 days to 15
days and also reduce the employer’s contribution to the PF from 14 to 12%.
(iv)It is the Complainant’s humble
submission that the Company issued the punitive transfer order only because he
refused to sign the MOU and accept lower salaries and forfeit the monetary
benefits, which he would have enjoyed under the Majithia Award. The Complainant
has suffered financially due to non-payment of his dues as per the Majithia
Award.
(v)
The Respondents
have made it clear in the Transfer order that “There will be no change in your
grade, designation and scale of pay. However work related compensation will be
subject to change as applicable to current location.” The Complainant submits
that this amounts to adversely changing his service conditions, as the wages paid
to Working Journalists in non-Metro Centres are less than those paid to
Complainant who is working in a Metro Centre.
(vi)The Respondent Company is fully
aware of the disruption of the Complainant’s life if he were forced to take the
transfer to Assam. The Respondents are aware that the Complainant’s family and
home are in Mumbai, his son is in college doing his 3rd year B.E. at
the SIES Graduate School of Technology Nerul and the Complainant’s wife is a
Teacher in a school at Thane. The Respondents are aware that the Complainant’s
family cannot move with him to Assam hence the Complainant would be forced to
hand over his resignation instead of reporting and working in Assam. The
Respondent is aware that the Complainant has no contacts in Assam, he has no local
language skills in Assam. It is pertinent to note that Respondents do not have
an office or staff in Assam. The Complainant is also suffering from Diabetes
and at his age going to Assam and eating in hotels will increase his sugar
levels thus causing serious health damage. Today his family monitors his diet
and intake, in Assam he will not have any family support nor do the Respondents
have a guest house in Assam. The malafide Transfer order is vague it does not
give any details as to whom the Complainant should report and where he should
work from. The Respondents have also verbally refused to issue any advance to
the Complainant to report to the place of transfer. There is no financial news
to be covered in Assam. It is pertinent to note that the Complainant is a
Special Correspondent for economic and financial news, hence he was posted in
Mumbai, which is the financial Capital of the country.
(vii)
The Complainant has made a representation to the
Respondents by his letter dated 03-7-2014 asking them to reconsider the
transfer order. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “H” is a copy of the Complainant’s representation
dated 03-07-2014. The Respondents have replied to the said letter refusing to
reconsider the transfer. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “I” is a copy of the Respondents’ reply dated
07-07-2014.
q)
By refusing to give wages and benefits as per the
Majithia Award to the Complainant No. 1 at Mumbai and forcing him to go the
Assam at lower salary, the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in
unfair labour practices under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. &
P.U.L.P. Act, 1971.
r)
It is the Complainants’ submission that the impugned transfer order is
malafide, illegal and bad-in-law and hence this Hon’ble Court has the powers to
interfere with such transfer order wherein the Complainants have proven that
the prima facie the transfer is malafide, in colourable exercise of employers’
rights and not for administrative purposes. The malafide Transfer order has
been issued for extraneous reasons and to pressurize and coerce the complainant
to forfeit his monetary benefits as decided by the Apex Courts. Therefore in
the interest of justice and equity, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash
and set aside the illegal transfer order dated 21st June 2014.
s)
The malafide Transfer order dated 21st June
2014 is vindictive and punitive. The Hon’ble Court has the powers under the Act
to lift the veil over the transfer order and strike it down if it decides that
there were malafide reasons to issue it. The Respondents have committed unfair
Labour practices by using a Transfer order to twist the Complainant’s arms so
that he signs a MOU which will allow the Respondent Company to deny him his
rightful dues, which have been protected by the Apex Court.
t)
The Complainants submit that in the interest of justice and equity the Respondents
be restrained from taking any disciplinary action against the Complainant No. 1
during the proceedings or adversely affecting his service conditions. The Complaint may be heard ex-parte and this
Hon’ble Court grant ad-interim reliefs staying the impugned transfer order in
order to grant temporary reliefs to the complainants. The Respondents be restrained from
terminating or adversely affecting the services of the Complainant No. 1 during
the pendency of the Complaint as the Complainant No. 1 apprehends that his
services would be summarily terminated.
4.
The Complainants have not made any complaint regarding
Unfair Labour Practices in any other forum, Labour Court or Industrial Court
under the Industrial Law.
5.
No enquiry was made regarding the Unfair Labour
Practices by an Investigating Officer.
6.
This complaint is filed within 90 days from the
occurrence of the Unfair Labour Practices.
7.
The Complainants will rely on the following documents
in support of this complaint.
1)
All the documents annexed.
2)
Any other document relevant to the case.
8.
The Complainants wish to examine the following
witnesses in support of this complaint
1) The
Complainant No. 1 himself;
2) Any
other person familiar with the facts and circumstances of the case.
9.
The Complainant has approached the Respondents for
ceasing to engage in Unfair Labour Practices but no relief was given.
10. The
Complainant wishes to rely on the following acts:
i)
The M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971
ii)
The Industrial Disputes Act 1947
iii) The
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.
iv)
The Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees
(Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955.
v)
Any other relevant acts applicable to this case.
11.
The Complainants pray that
enquiry be made and the Respondents be directed to cease to engage in Unfair
Labour Practices and the Complainants be given reliefs as follows:-
(a) Hold and declare that the
Respondents have committed unfair labour practice under Items 3 and 9 of
Schedule IV of M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971;
(b) Direct the Respondents to
cease and desist from engaging in the unfair labour practice complained of;
(c) Quash and set aside the
transfer order dated 21-6-2014 as malafide, illegal and improper;
(d) Direct the Respondents to
give regular work and wages at Mumbai office;
(e) Restrain the Respondents
from adversely affecting the service conditions of the Complainant;
(f) Pending hearing and final
disposal of this complaint, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass following
interim/ad-interim reliefs:-
i.
Direct the Respondents to temporarily withdraw the unfair
labour practices complained of;
ii.
Stay the effect, implementation and operation of transfer
order dated 21-6-2014 issued to the Complainant No. 1;
iii.
Restrain the Respondents from terminating / dismissing /
discharging / suspending and / or adversely affecting the service conditions of
the Complainant No. 1;
iv.
Direct the Respondents to allow the Complainant No. 1 to work
at Mumbai and provide him with regular work and wages;
v.
Direct the Respondents not to take any disciplinary action
against the Complainant No. 1 in pursuance of transfer order dated 21-6-2014;
(g) For Ad-interim reliefs in
terms of Prayer clause (f) i. to v.;
(h) For costs of the complaint;
(i) Any other and further order
this Hon'ble Court may find fit and proper under the circumstances.
12. This complaint is made on
this day of July 2014.
Place: Mumbai
Dated: This day of July 2014 Complainant
No. 1
For
and on behalf of
Complainant
No. 2
( )
VERIFICATION
We, the Complainants
hereinabove, do hereby verify that the contents in the above complaint in paras
1 to 3 are from my knowledge and are true and those in paras 4 onwards are
written from information obtained and believed to be true.
Place: Mumbai
Dated: This day of July 2014 Complainant
No. 1
For
and on behalf of
Complainant
No. 2
( )
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT AT MUMBAI
BEFORE
SHRI. HON'BLE
MEMBER
COMPLAINT
(ULP) NO. OF 2014
1.
Suresh Nandi
Age 56 years,
604/D-10, Rutu
Estate CHS,
Patlipada, G. B.
Road,
Thane (West) –
400 607.
2.
Brihanmumbai Union of Journalists ( BUJ )
(A Registered Trade
Union)
Add: 23-25,
Prospect Chambers Annexe,
317, Dr. D. N.
Road,
Mumbai-400 001. …
Complainants
Versus
1.
Deccan Herald
M/s. The Printers (Mysore) Pvt. Ltd.
No. 303, Tulsiani Chambers,
Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021.
2.
Mr. K. N. Tilak Kumar
Joint Managing Director
Deccan Herald
M/s. The Printers (Mysore) Pvt. Ltd.
No. 303, Tulsiani Chambers,
Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021.
3.
Mr. K. Subramanya
Manager, Human Resources
Deccan Herald
M/s. The Printers (Mysore) Pvt. Ltd.
No. 303, Tulsiani Chambers,
Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. … Respondents
APPLICATION FOR AD-INTERIM /
INTERIM RELIEFS UNDER SECTION 30(2) OF THE
M.R.T.U. AND P.U.L.P. ACT, 1971.
MAY IT PLEASE THIS HON’BLE
COURT:
The Complainants respectfully
submit as under:
1. The
Complainant No. 1 is filing this complaint in the capacity of a permanent
employee of the Respondent No. 1 he has been working as a Journalist in the
Respondent No 1 Newspaper.
2. The
Respondent No. 1 Company which is in the printing and publishing business of
newspaper in the name and style of a Daily National Newspaper i.e. Deccan
Herald. The Respondents No. 1 to 3 have engaged in and are engaging in unfair
labour practices under Item 3 and 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. &
P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 on and from 21st June, 2014, i.e. the date of
mala fide transfer order issued to the Complainant No. 1 transferring his
services from Mumbai, Maharashtra to Guwahati, Assam. North East.
3. The
Complainant joined the Respondent No. 1 Newspaper on 15th March,
2007 on a six month probation period as a ‘Special Correspondent’ vide Letter
dated 27-01-2007 After successful completion of probation the Complainant was
Confirmed as a ‘Special Correspondent’ vide letter dated 28th August
2007 with effect from 15th September, 2007.
4. The
Complainant employee always has been an active union member and has taken up
issues of working journalists and non-journalist staff with the management of
Respondent Company. The Complainant
along with the Complainant No. 2 has been at the forefront of seeking
implementation of the Majithia Wage Board Award to the employees of the
Respondent No. 1 Company. The Respondents however have been avoiding its
implementation as they do not want to pay the increased wages to the employees.
The Respondents have been pressurizing the employees to sign a Memorandum of
Settlement accepting far less emoluments than recommended by the Majithia Wage
Board Award.
5. On
4th June 2014, the Respondents had circulated a copy of the
Memorandum of Settlement, which they wanted the employees to sign, by sending
it to the official email ids of the employees. The Complainant also received
such an email at his official email id sureshnandi@deccanherald.co.in. The
Complainant No. 1 objected to the said Memorandum of Settlement on the ground
that it would amount of contempt of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment. The said
Memorandum of Settlement also required the employees to withdraw support of the
union wherever disputes were raised by the unions on behalf of the employees
and also to file applications before the various courts/authorities/tribunals
seeking exclusion from the recommendations of the Majithia Wage Board award.
The Complainant No. 1 further submits that by signing the said MoU, it would
cause severe financial loss to him, to the tune of Rs. 8 lacs.
6. The
Complainant No. 1 has refused to sign the Memorandum of Settlement. The
Respondents have therefore immediately taken vindictive action against him by
issuing him a Transfer Order dated 21-06-2014 transferring him from Mumbai,
Maharashtra to a far flung place of Guwahati, Assam, w.e.f. 21-07-2014. The
Complainant states that as per the various Wage Board awards, a ‘Special
Correspondent’ can be posted only in a Metro centre and admittedly Guwahati is
not a Metro. The Complainant submits that this clearly shows that his transfer
order has nothing to do with business exigency or organization of the business
of the Respondent Company but smacks of highhandedness and vindictive attitude
against the Complainant for his trade union activities.
7. The
Complainant states that he is at the fag end of his employment and has only 21
months left in the Company, as per his service conditions the Complainant is
due for Superannuation in March 2016. There is no bonafide reason to dislocate
the Complainant from Mumbai where he has been working ever since he joined the
Respondent Newspaper in 2007.
8. The
Respondents have made it clear in the Transfer order that “There will be no
change in your grade, designation and scale of pay. However work related
compensation will be subject to change as applicable to current location.” The
Complainant submits that this amounts to adversely changing his service
conditions, as the wages paid to Working Journalists in non-Metro Centres are
less than those paid to Complainant who is working in a Metro Centre.
9. The
Respondent is aware that the Complainant has no contacts in Assam, he has no
local language skills in Assam. It is pertinent to note that Respondents do not
have an office or staff in Assam. The Complainant is also suffering from
Diabetes and at his age going to Assam and eating in hotels will increase his
sugar levels thus causing serious health damage. Today his family monitors his
diet and intake, in Assam he will not have any family support nor do the
Respondents have a guest house in Assam. The malafide Transfer order is vague
it does not give any details as to whom the Complainant should report and where
he should work from. The Complainant has made a representation to the
Respondents by his letter dated 03-7-2014 asking them to reconsider the transfer
order. The Respondents have replied to the said letter refusing to reconsider
the transfer.
10. It is the Complainants’
submission that the impugned transfer order is malafide, illegal and bad-in-law
and hence this Hon’ble Court has the powers to interfere with such transfer
order wherein the Complainants have proven that the prima facie the transfer is
malafide, in colourable exercise of employers’ rights and not for
administrative purposes. The malafide Transfer order has been issued for
extraneous reasons and to pressurize and coerce the complainant to forfeit his
monetary benefits as decided by the Apex Courts. The Complaint may be heard
ex-parte and this Hon’ble Court grant ad-interim reliefs staying the impugned
transfer order in order to grant temporary reliefs to the complainants. The Respondents be restrained from
terminating or adversely affecting the services of the Complainant No. 1 during
the pendency of the Complaint as the Complainant No. 1 apprehends that his
services would be summarily terminated.
11. Pending hearing and final
disposal of this complaint, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass following
interim/ad-interim reliefs:-
i.
Direct the Respondents to temporarily withdraw the unfair
labour practices complained of;
ii.
Stay the effect, implementation and operation of transfer
order dated 21-6-2014 issued to the Complainant No. 1;
iii.
Restrain the Respondents from terminating / dismissing /
discharging / suspending and / or adversely affecting the service conditions of
the Complainant No. 1;
iv.
Direct the Respondents to allow the Complainant No. 1 to work
at Mumbai and provide him with regular work and wages;
v.
Direct the Respondents not to take any disciplinary action
against the Complainant No. 1 in pursuance of transfer order dated 21-6-2014;
vi.
For Ad-interim reliefs in terms of Prayer clause i. to v.;
vii.
For costs of the application;
viii.
Any other and further order this Hon'ble Court may find fit
and proper under the circumstances.
Place: Mumbai
Dated: This day of July 2014 Complainant
No. 1
For
and on behalf of
Complainant
No. 2
( )
VERIFICATION
We, the Complainants hereinabove, do hereby verify that
the contents in the above ad-interim / interim relief application are from my
knowledge and are true and as per information obtained and believed to be true.
Place: Mumbai
Dated: This day of July 2014 Complainant
No. 1
For
and on behalf of
Complainant
No. 2
( )
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT AT MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI HON'BLE
MEMBER
COMPLAINT (ULP) NO.
OF 2014
Suresh
V. Nandi & Anr. …
Complainants
Versus
Deccan Herald & ors. …
Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
OF SURESH V. NANDI IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AD-INTERIM / INTERIM RELIEF
I, Suresh V. Nandi, aged 56
years, the Complainant No. 1 hereinabove, resident of Mumbai, do hereby state
on solemn affirmation as follows:
1. I say that I am filing this
complaint as well as application for interim relief and therefore I am competent
to depose in the matter.
2. I say that the averments and
contentions are well set out in the main body of the complaint and for the sake
of brevity and to avoid unnecessary repetition, the same may be treated as if
reproduced herein in extenso and specifically sworn by me.
3. I say that I have been
issued transfer order dated 21-6-2014, which is mala fide, unjust, illegal and
improper. I say that the said order has been issued in the colourable exercise
of management’s rights and that there is no business exigency whatsoever.
4. I say that I am an active
union member and that I am being transferred by way of unfair labour practices.
I say that I have a strong prima facie case for the grant of interim
reliefs. I say that grave harm and prejudice will be caused to me if interim
reliefs are not granted, which cannot be compensated in monetary terms. I say
that on the other hand no harm or prejudice will be caused to the Respondents.
I say that the balance of convenience is in my favour.
5. I, therefore, say that it is
a fit and proper case wherein the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant
ad-interim / interim reliefs prayed for.
Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai )
On this day of July, 2014 ) DEPONENT
BEFORE
ME
Identified and Explained by:
Vinod Shetty / Ketaki Rege
Advocate,
49/2359, Bandra Shri Saikrupa Society,
Gandhi Nagar, Bandra (E),
Mumbai-400 051
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT AT MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI HON'BLE
MEMBER
COMPLAINT (ULP) NO.
OF 2014
Suresh
V. Nandi & Anr. …
Complainants
Versus
Deccan Herald & ors. …
Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
OF IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AD-INTERIM /
INTERIM RELIEF
I, ,
aged ___ years, the ________________ of Complainant No. 2 union hereinabove,
resident of Mumbai, do hereby state on solemn affirmation as follows:
6. I say that I am filing this
complaint as well as application for interim relief, along with the Complainant
No. 1 employee and therefore I am competent to depose in the matter.
7. I say that the averments and
contentions are well set out in the main body of the complaint and for the sake
of brevity and to avoid unnecessary repetition, the same may be treated as if
reproduced herein in extenso and specifically sworn by me.
8. I say that the Complainant
No. 1, who is a member of Complainant No. 2 union, has been issued transfer
order dated 21-6-2014, which is mala fide, unjust, illegal and improper. I say
that the said order has been issued in the colourable exercise of management’s
rights and that there is no business exigency whatsoever.
9. I say that the Complainants
have strong prima facie case for the grant of interim reliefs. I say
that grave harm and prejudice will be caused to the Complainants if interim
reliefs are not granted, which cannot be compensated in monetary terms. I say
that on the other hand no harm or prejudice will be caused to the Respondents.
I say that the balance of convenience is in my favour.
10. I, therefore, say that it is
a fit and proper case wherein the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant
ad-interim / interim reliefs prayed for.
Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai )
On this day of July, 2014 ) DEPONENT
BEFORE
ME
Identified and Explained by:
Vinod Shetty / Ketaki Rege
Advocate,
49/2359, Bandra Shri Saikrupa Society,
Gandhi Nagar, Bandra (E),
Mumbai-400 051
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT AT MUMBAI
BEFORE
SHRI. HON'BLE
MEMBER
COMPLAINT
(ULP) NO. OF 2014
1.
Suresh Nandi
Age 56 years,
604/D-10, Rutu
Estate CHS,
Patlipada, G. B.
Road,
Thane (West) –
400 607.
2.
Brihanmumbai Union of Journalists ( BUJ )
(A Registered Trade
Union)
Add: 23-25,
Prospect Chambers Annexe,
317, Dr. D. N.
Road,
Mumbai-400 001. …
Complainants
Versus
1.
Deccan Herald
M/s. The Printers (Mysore) Pvt. Ltd.
No. 303, Tulsiani Chambers,
Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021.
2.
Mr. K. N. Tilak Kumar
Joint Managing Director
Deccan Herald
M/s. The Printers (Mysore) Pvt. Ltd.
No. 303, Tulsiani Chambers,
Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021.
3.
Mr. K. Subramanya
Manager, Human Resources
Deccan Herald
M/s. The Printers (Mysore) Pvt. Ltd.
No. 303, Tulsiani Chambers,
Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. … Respondents
V
A K A L A T N A M A
We, Suresh V. Nandi, the
Complainant No. 1 employee and _______________ ,
_______________ of the Complainant No. 2 union hereinabove, do hereby authorise
and appoint Mr. Vinod Shetty and Ms. Ketaki Rege, Advocates, to act, appear and
plead, on our behalf, in the abovesaid matter.
Place: Mumbai
Dated: This day of July 2014 Complainant
No. 1
For
and on behalf of
Complainant
No. 2
( )
Accepted by:
Vinod Shetty / Ketaki Rege
Advocate
49/2359, Bandra Shri
Saikrupa Society,
Gandhinagar, Bandra
(E),
Mumbai-400 051
We are not
members of the Advocates’ Welfare Fund.
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT AT MUMBAI
BEFORE HON'BLE MEMBER
COMPLAINT
(ULP) NO. OF 2014
Suresh Nandi & anr. …
Complainants
Versus
Deccan Herald & ors. …
Respondents
MEMORANDUM OF REGISTERED ADDRESS
1.
Suresh Nandi
604/D-10,
Rutu Estate CHS,
Patlipada,
G. B. Road,
Thane
(West) – 400 607.
2.
Brihanmumbai Union of Journalists ( BUJ )
(A
Registered Trade Union)
Add:
23-25, Prospect Chambers Annexe,
317,
Dr. D. N. Road,
Mumbai-400 001.
Place: Mumbai
Dated: This day of July 2014 Adv. for Complainants
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT AT MUMBAI
BEFORE HON'BLE MEMBER
COMPLAINT
(ULP) NO. OF 2014
Suresh Nandi & anr. …
Complainants
Versus
Deccan Herald & ors. …
Respondents
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
BE
pleased to take the following documents on record on behalf of the Complainants
and exhibit the same:
Sr.
No. Exhibit Description Page No.
1. “A” Copy of the Offer of Employment
Letter
dated 27-01-2007
2. “B” Copy
of the Complainant’s Confirmation
letter dated
28-08-2007
3. “C” Copy of the email dated
4-6-2014 received
by the Complainant No. 1 along with the
attached
draft of Memorandum of Settlement
4. “D” Chart showing the calculation
of financial
loss to the
Complainant
5. “E” Copy of the Transfer Order
dated 21-06-2014
issued to the
Complainant No. 1.
6. “F” Copy
of pre-award payslip of Complainant
7. “G” Copy of post-award payslip of
Complainant
8. “H” Copy of the Complainant’s
representation
dated 03-07-2014
9. “I” Copy of the Respondents’
reply dated
07-07-2014
Place: Mumbai
Dated: This day of July 2014 Adv. for Complainants
.jpg)