Transfer Incidental In Employment: Madras HC Dismisses Plea Challenging TANGEDCO's Orders Transferring Employees To TN Green Energy Corp

Justice N Senthilkumar noted that the transfer was made pursuant to a tripartite agreement entered into between the State Government, TNEB, TANTRANSO, TANGEDCO, and the trade unions. The court thus ruled that the trade unions could not challenge the transfer when they were already a part of the tripartite agreement. The court also noted transfer was an incidental part of employment and even assuming that some employees had difficulty with the transfer, it could not be a ground to challenge the transfers.

“The transfer is an incidental happening in an employment. The petitioners are officers in rank and many of them are being transferred from one desk to another desk. Even assuming for a moment that there are some difficulties for the persons employed who are likely to be transferred by virtue of the impugned orders, that cannot be a ground to challenge the powers of the Government when the power is contemplated under the Electricity Act, 2003,” the court observed.

The court also noted that while there were more than 50,000 employees in TANGEDO, only 79 employees were transferred and there would be no change to their service conditions also. Thus, the court noted that the Union's petition which was sphere heading the cause of the persons likely to be transferred was without reason and rhyme The court remarked that the union's attitude should be for the welfare of the employees at large and not the interests of a few.

“The contention that there was no Tripartite Agreement is not only misleading the Court but it also reflects the mind of the petitioner Union that they are interested only in protecting the employees who are at the officers level. The attitude of the petitioner Union should be in consonance with the welfare of the employees at large and not in the interest of very few persons who according to the petitioner Union are likely to be affected,” the court said.

The petitioner union had argued that there was no tripartite agreement between the union, other trade unions, the government, and the newly formed companies, and the transfer order, in the absence of an agreement amounts to non-compliance with Section 133 of the Act. The Union thus contended that the transfer order should be quashed in limine. It was also argued that en masse transfer is prohibited and the impugned orders on the transfer of officers and employees on an “as-is-where-is” basis without seeking their willingness & consent showed non-application of mind.

The Advocate General, however, contended that the Government Orders do not in any way affect the service conditions of the officers and employees. It was also submitted that being a party to the tripartite agreement, the petitioner union could not make a hue and cry now. It was also submitted that the tripartite agreement clarified the transfer and service conditions and was in consonance with Section 133 of the Electricity Act 2003.

The State also submitted that transfer is an integral part of the service conditions and as per Section 131 of the Electricity Act when there was a transfer order under the transfer scheme, the officers and employees were duty-bound to hold office on terms and conditions determined in accordance with the transfer scheme. Pointing that there was no requirement of taking consent before ordering a transfer, the AG submitted that consent and convenience were the antithesis of transfer.

The court agreed with the State and ruled that the exercise of power was well within Sections 131 and 133 of the Electricity Act 2003. The court also noted that the Union's submission that there was no tripartite agreement was utterly false when the Union itself had filed the agreement along with its petition. The court also observed that it was clear that there was a tripartite agreement which was binding on all parties.

Thus noting that the petitioner was unable to show any deviation from the Act, the court dismissed the pleas as devoid of merits.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.R.Singaravelan, Senior Counsel for Mr.A.K.Suresh

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.P.S.Raman Advocate General, Mr.P.Wilson Senior Advocate for Mr.K.Raj Kumar Standing Counsel, Mr.J.Ravindran Additional Advocate General for Mr.K.Raj Kumar Standing Counsel

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 359

Case Title: TNEB Accounts and Executive Staff Union v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others

Case No: W.P.No.19372 of 2024