Team  SoOLEGAL

Under Article 32, We Can’t Go Into Issues Of Facts: SC Refuses To Entertain Bank Employee's Challenge To 'Vindictive' Transfer

Team SoOLEGAL 25 Nov 2020 3:13pm

Under Article 32, We Can’t Go Into Issues Of Facts: SC Refuses To Entertain Bank Employee's Challenge To 'Vindictive' Transfer

A petition has been filed by an employee of Yes bank, Shilesh Sivasankaran, under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution on Tuesday i.e., 24.11.2020. In which the petitioner sought remedy for the issuance of the writ of Mandamus against his vindictive transfer. 

In this regard, Justice Ravindra Bhat said to the applicant that being a workman he could have seek remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or could come under a suit.

While observing the fact and grievance suffered by the applicant, Justice U. U. Lalit said that merely based upon a vindictive transfer, the applicant could not move to the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution bypassing all the other courts. He mentioned that the petitioner is an employee of a private sector bank therefore they cannot interfere under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. Also, added that his vindictive transfer was a matter of fact and suggested him to withdraw the plea or the same would be dismissed.

In contrary to this, the petitioner urged the court that the concerned matter was the matter of his life and livelihood. Where he was having expertise in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2020 (PMLA) and has been transferred to the domain of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) intentionally for ruining his career as it will take a further 10 years for him to master. He also urged that he has on record that he had been threatened for being transferred and ruining his career.

However, while finding the domains of PMLA and FEMA connected, Justice Lalit remarked that "Don't makeup adjectives. Where is your life under threat? How is your livelihood under threat? You have only been transferred from post A to post B. If you say the transfer is vindictive, then the issues need a factual assessment and analysis, and in our jurisdiction under 32, it is not possible to determine whether it was vindictive or not.”

The three-judge bench comprising of Justice U.U. Lalit, Justice Vineet Saran and Justice Ravindra Bhat while concluding the hearing ordered that “In Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court is not expected to go into issues of facts. All these questions may be agitated in a properly instituted proceeding”



Tagged: Article 32   Indian Constitution   Justice Ravindra Bhat   Industrial Disputes Act   Justice U. U. Lalit   Justice Vineet Saran   Supreme Court  
Did you find this write up useful? YES 0 NO 0
Featured Members view all

New Members view all

×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.