Saturday, August 9, 2014

Deccan Herald journalist takes management to court on Majithia Wage Board recommendations


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

1 comment:

  1. Madam, Thank you for posting this. Could you please show the content of Exhibit “D” - Chart showing the calculation of financial loss to the Complainant. I would like to know whether the said exhibit contains loss under wrong calculation of Dearness Allowance. Some companies are following 189 BASE and DIVISOR formula against the Majithia Wage Board recommended 167 BASE and DIVISOR. 189 B&D formula effectively reduces the DA by 18% of Basic Pay as of now.

    ReplyDelete