H.D.

Singh vsReserve Bank Of India & Ors

V.Khalid – appellant being a Tikka Mazdoor while Reserve Bank of India was first
respondent.
1)Appellant presented himself daily and was employed only for 4 days in 1974,154
days in 1975 and 105 days in 1976.
2)He was not told at the time when he accepted the job his name would be struck off
from the rolls if he passed matriculate examination. He pleaded mala fides. Persons
who had matriculated after selection had been retained in service and he was
discriminated against.
3)The respondent contended that reference was bad since the dispute was not
sponsored by any representative trade union and the dispute was not an industrial
dispute
1)The tribunal court held that action of RBI Kanpur in not giving regular appointment
to appellant is held to be legal and proper and his name could be stuck off from the
list. Appellant went against this award to Supreme Court.
2)Supreme Court held that striking off the name of a workman from rolls by the
employer amounts to “termination of service” and such termination is retrenchment
with the meaning of section 2(oo) and Section 25-F is applicable in this case law.
3)SC referred to contains a list of unfair labor practices as defined in Section 2(ra).
Item 10 reads "To employ workmen as 'badlis', casuals or temporaries and to
continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and
privileges of permanent workmen." We have no option but to observe that the bank,
in this case, has indulged in methods amounting to unfair labor practice.
4)SC set aside the order of Industrial Tribunal and hold that the striking off the name
of the appellant from list is retrenchment under section 2(oo) and is violation of
section 25-F.The respondent bank was direct to enlist appellant as regular employee
and reinstate him and pay him his back wages.
STATE OF RAJASHTAN VS DEEPA RAM

The respondent Deepa Ram was engaged as laborer on daily wages by Merta City
Sub Division of the Government of Rajasthan. He filed a writ petition .A learned
single judged of the High Court held that the appellant was motivated for
discontinuing the engagement of the respondent as a daily wager with a view to see
that he did not complete the period of engagement of 240 days which have resulted
in conferring certain benefits under ID Act 1947 . It was also observed that during
this period such works were allocated to contractual employers. The termination of
employment of the respondent amounted to an unfair labor practice. The writ
petition was allowed and the respondent was directed to be reinstated.
This is contained in a list of unfair labor practices as defined in Section 2(ra). Item 6
reads “To abolish the work of a regular nature being done by workmen, and to give
such work to contractors “

Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. v. Mamni

The respondent Mamni was appointed initially for a period of 89 days in the post of
Junior technician on ad hoc basis. The post was temporary and her services were
liable to be terminated without assigning any reason or notice. However, it was
noticed that she used to be appointed after a gap of one or two days upon
competition of each term. Such an action on part of appellant cannot be said to be
bonafide. This was found to be infringing to the provisions of section 25-F of
industrial dispute act. The court held that the services of the respondent had been
terminated on a regular basis and she had been reappointed after a gap of one or
two days. Such a course of action was adopted by appellant with a view to defeat the
object of the Act.
Mrs. Chitra Srivastava vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi 
1)Petitioner Mrs Chitra Srivastava who is Hamdard Wakf Laboratories as Secretary to the Head,
Human Resource Development at the Head Office, had challenged in the writ petition order
transferring her to Bhopal. Petitioner, who was working at the Head Office in Delhi, contended
that her transfer hundreds of miles away, was a mala fide one. She was mother of two children
with a sick husband, who has undergone neurosurgery
2) Petitioner contended that she was being made a scapegoat simply to show that the transfer
of Arifa Nauman was not a solitary case but a routine one by transferring her also

3) It was urged that Mrs. Arifa Nauman was being victimized on account of trade union
activities of her husband, who was Secretary of Workers' Union of respondent No. 3. Petitioner
in the writ petition had questioned her transfer as a mala fide one and being contrary to the
standing orders.
4) Respondents had raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition
contending that an alternative efficacious remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act was
available, which the petitioner had failed to avail.
5) Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, had contended that the Tribunal did not have
any power to grant stay of the transfer order and the order affected her livelihood and
fundamental rights. 
6) Respondent on the other hand, had contended that the transfer was not emanating from
any malice, rather the respondent had only accommodated the petitioner by transferring her
to Aurangabad, since her job was rendered surplus otherwise and she was liable to be
retrenched.
7) The Bench reached the conclusion that transfer of a workman made mala fide under the
guise of following management policy is an unfair labor practice in respect of which an
industrial dispute could be raised.
8) Fifth Schedule of the Act specifies the various trade practices. S. No. 7 of the said Schedule is
as under: “To transfer a workman mala fide from one place to another under the guise of
following management policy”