“Transfer Is An Incidental Happening In An Employment”- Madras HC Dismisses Plea Of Staff Union Against TANGEDCO’s Transfer Orders
The Madras High Court observed that the transfer is an incidental happening in an employment.
The Court dismissed a writ petition of TNEB (Tamil Nadu Electricity Board) Accounts and Executive Staff Union against the transfer orders issued by the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd (TANGEDCO).
A Single Bench of Justice N. Senthilkumar emphasised, “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 Bench noted that the petitioner Union has filed the writ petition spearheading the cause of the persons who are likely to be transferred and the same is without reason or rhyme.
Senior Advocate R. Singaravelan appeared for the petitioner while Advocate General P.S. Raman and Senior Advocate P. Wilson appeared for the respondents.
Factual Background -
TNEB was reorganized under the Tamil Nadu Electricity Act, 2003 and by the said reorganization, TANGEDCO and TANTRANSCO were established. The Tamil Nadu Electricity (Reorganization and Reforms) Transfer Scheme, 2010 dealt with transfer of officers and employees from TNEB to TANGEDCO and TANTRANSCO. The said scheme was duly approved by the Tamil Nadu Government. Pursuant to the decision of the State Government to divide the combined task of Generation and Distribution of Electricity, a Thermal Generation Company namely TNPGCL (Tamil Nadu Power Generation Corporation Ltd.) was formed. A Tripartite Agreement was entered into between the State Government, TNEB Ltd. (TANTRANSCO and TANGEDCO), and Trade Unions and Associations.
In March 2024, via government order, a new scheme named as “The Tamil Nadu Electricity Restructuring and Transfer Scheme, 2024” was duly published in the gazette. In the said scheme, transfer of officers and employees of TANGEDCO to TNPGCL and TNGECL and the terms and conditions of such transfer were dealt with. TANGEDCO issued an order by which 13 posts from TANGEDCO were redeployed to TANTRANSCO. It also issued an order for redeploying 20 posts of TANGEDCO to TNGECL. It further issued an order for redeploying 20 posts and incumbents from TANGEDCO to TNGECL and 47 posts and incumbents to TNPGCL. Challenging such transfer orders, the petitioner approached the High Court.
The High Court in the above context of the case, said, “As rightly contended by Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Advocate General, when the TANGEDCO is in principle separated as TNGECL and TNPGCL, the only point for consideration is whether the Government has the power to carry out such an exercise. The exercise of power is well within and under Section 131 & 133 of the Electricity Act, 2003. TANGEDCO by itself was formed under Section 131 and the petitioner now cannot question the powers of the Government. Section 131 makes it clear that the power is vested with the Government to form any number of successor entities.”
The Court observed that the hue and cry made by the petitioner Union that there was no Tripartite Agreement between the parties is utter false when the petitioner themselves have filed the Tripartite Agreement and that the said contention is contrary to clause 2(u) of G.O.Ms.No.32.
“The Tripartite Agreement dated 12.02.2024 is in consonance with Clause 2(u) of G.O.Ms.No.32 dated 06.03.2024 (Transfer Scheme) and it is applicable for transfer of officers and employees to TNPGCL and TNGECL which are formed in the process of restructuring TANGEDCO and the same is binding on all the parties”, it added.
Furthermore, the Court noted that the impugned orders itself would show that the number of persons who are likely to be transferred in total is only 79 when TANGEDCO comprises more than 50,000 employees under it.
“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”, it remarked.
The Court enunciated that, there is no office without staff and that the newly formed companies are not in a position to commence their function. It added by saying that, there cannot be any functioning of a body only with the head and without the trunk.
“The petitioner has not established any deviation from Section 133 of the Electricity Act, 2003, G.O.No.32 dated 06.03.2024 (Transfer Scheme) and the Tripartite Agreement dated 12.02.2024”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Cause Title- TNEB Accounts and Executive Staff Union v. The Principal Secretary to Government, Energy Department & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate R. Singaravelan and Advocate A.K. Suresh.
Respondents: Advocate General P.S. Raman, Senior Advocate P. Wilson, Standing Counsel K. Raj Kumar, AAG J. Ravindran, and Standing Counsel K. Raj Kumar.
