Smt. Polly Koch vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors.

Court
Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/15
GAHC010103862026

undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No.: WP(C)/1507/2026
SMT. POLLY KOCH
D/O LATE PHANIDHAR KOCH
R/O JAPORIGOG
P.O.- DISPUR
P.S.- DISPUR
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
PIN-781005
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
LABOUR WELFARE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
ASSAM
2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
LABOUR WELFARE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
ASSAM
3:THE PRESIDING OFFICER (I/C)
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
DIBRUGARH
PIN-786001
DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
4:THE PRESIDING OFFICER
LABOUR COURT

Page No.# 2/15
GUWAHATI
PIN-781001
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
5:BIDYUT KUMAR DAS
REGISTRAR
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
DIBRUGARH
DIST- DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN-786001

BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. M. K. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate
Mr. M. Sarmah, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Chetia, Govt. Advocate
Mr. S. Dutta, Sr. Advocate
Mr. P. Sengupta, Advocate
Mr. H. K. Das, SC, GHC
Mr. N. K. Sarmah, Advocate

Date on which judgment is reserved : NA

Date of pronouncement of judgment : 25.06.2026

Whether the pronouncement is of the
Operative part of the judgment? : Yes

Whether the full judgment has been
Pronounced? : Yes
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. M. K. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr. M. Sarmah, the learned counsel for the Petitioner.

Page No.# 3/15
Mr. M. Chetia, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the
Labour Department of the Government of Assam; Mr. S. Dutta,
the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P. Sengupta, the
learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No.5.
2. The writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner being
aggrieved that the Notification dated 11.03.2026 whereby the
writ Petitioner was transferred from the post of Registrar, Labour
Court, Guwahati to the post of Registrar, Industrial Tribunal,
Dibrugarh and the Respondent No.5 was transferred from the
post of Registrar, Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh to the post of
Registrar, Labour Court, Guwahati. The contents of the said
impugned Notification being relevant, is reproduced herein
under:-
“GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
LABOUR WELFARE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR ::: GUWAHATI-6
Block-D, Third Floor, Janata Bhawan; e-mail id: [email protected]
ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR
NOTIFICATION
Dated Dispur the 11th March 2026
ECF No. 651294/69 : In compliance of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court Single Judge
Bench Order dated 2.12.2025 in WP(C) No. 3585/2025 read with Division Bench Order
dated 18.12.2025 in WA/409/2025 and in the interest of public Service, Ms Polly Koch,
Registrar, Labour Court, Guwahati is hereby transferred and posted as Registrar,
Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh with immediate effect.
ECF No. 651294/70: In compliance of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court Single Judge
Bench Order dated 2.12.2025 in WP(C) No. 3585/2025 read with Division Bench Order

Page No.# 4/15
dated 18.12.2025 in WA/409/2025 and in the interest of public Service Shri Bidyut
Kumar Das, Registrar, Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh is transferred and posted as
Registrar Labour Court, Guwahati with immediate effect.
Further, Ms Polly Koch, Registrar, Labour Court, Guwahati and Shri Bidyut Kumar
Das, Registrar, Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh are hereby stand released to enable their
joining against their new places of posting. They are directed to join their new places
of posting on or before 15.3.2026.
Digitally signed by
GYANENDRA DEV TRIPATHI
Date: 11-03-2026 13:43:13

Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam,
Labour Welfare Department”

3. A perusal of the above quoted Notification would show that
the said Notification was issued in compliance to the order dated
02.12.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 3585/2025 read with the
Division Bench order dated 18.12.2025 in Writ Appeal
No.409/2025 and further uses the expression, "in the interest of
public service”. It is under such circumstances necessary for
detailing out of the facts which led to the passing of the order
dated 02.12.2025 in WP(C) No.3585/2025 as well as the order
passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court dated
18.12.2025 in WA No.409/2025.
4. The records more particularly the order dated 02.12.2025
passed in WP(C) No.3585/2025 show that the Respondent No.5
herein had submitted a representation expressing personal

Page No.# 5/15
hardship relating to his ailing mother and child, and therefore,
sought for transfer to Guwahati. The said representation so
submitted by the Respondent No.5 was examined by the
Authorities and was approved on 06.06.2025 at 8.04 PM by the
Additional Chief Secretary. Subsequent thereto, the concerned
Minister of the Department granted the approval on 13.06.2025
by putting his digital signature at 6.03 PM. Thereupon, the
transfer order was passed on 20.06.2025.
5. The said transfer order dated 20.06.2025 was challenged in
WP(C) No.3585/2025 by the Petitioner herein on the ground that
the said transfer order was not in the interest of public service.
6. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court while passing
the order dated 02.12.2025 not only took into account the
respective pleadings, but also took note of the records which
were placed before the learned Coordinate Bench. This aspect
could be seen from a reading of paragraph Nos.9, 10, 11 & 12 of
the order dated 02.12.2025 which is reproduced herein under:-
“
9. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and pleadings
available on record have been carefully perused. Judgments pressed
into service have also been carefully noted. The records pertaining
to the order of transfer upon being directed to be placed are also
placed before the Court.
10. Having perused the records, it is seen that the initiation of

Page No.# 6/15
transfer was on the basis of a representation issued, submitted by
the private respondent No. 3, expressing personal hardships relating
to his ailing mother and his child. His ailing mother is in Nagaon
and, therefore, transfer to Guwahati will necessarily ameliorate his
grievances. The petitioner, on the other hand, pursuant to the
issuance of the transfer order also represented before the
authorities praying for recall of the transfer order.
11. A careful perusal of the extract of the records placed before the
Court, including the note sheets, reflect that the representation of
the respondent no.3 was examined in detail and was put up for
necessary orders by the higher authorities. Subsequently, the higher
authorities approved the order. It is shown to be digitally signed on
06-06-2025 at 08.04 pm by the Additional Chief Secretary.
Subsequent endorsement, bearing the digital signature of the
concerned Minister of the Department, was obtained on 13-06-2025
shown to be digitally signed at 06.03 pm. Thereafter, steps were
taken to issue the transfer order and subsequently, on 20-06-2025,
the transfer order was issued.
12. A perusal of the note sheets and the accompanying documents
available in the extract of the records placed before the Court does
not reflect any reasons from the authorities which will support the
contention of the respondent Authorities that the transfer order
dated 20-06-2025 was issued in exigencies of service or because of
administrative reasons. The entire proposal was based on the
request made by the private respondent no.3 which came to be
approved and the transfer order was issued. The records also do not

Page No.# 7/15
reflect any reference to any provision of the Rules or any office
Memorandum or notification which lays down the parameters of
transfer.”
7. The learned Coordinate Bench further taking into account
the settled principles of law, came to a categorical finding that
the impugned transfer order was not issued in public interest.
This aspect would appear from paragraph Nos.20, 21 and 22 of
the order dated 02.12.2025, which is reproduced herein under:-
“ 20. From the judgments referred above, it is clear that for malice in
law to be attributed, it is not enough to show that the person acted
ignorantly or innocently. So where any act is done in contravention
of law or without sufficient reasons, in support of such actions, then
such action can be treated to be malice in law and it need not be
specifically alleged. It can be inferred by a Court from the facts and
circumstances of the case.
21. Under such circumstances, while this Court does not dispute
with the proposition that transfer is an incident of service and
ordinarily interference with transfer orders ought not to be
encouraged in judicial review, the peculiar facts which have been
placed before the Court reveal that the impugned transfer order
dated 20-06-2025 is not a transfer order issued in public interest.
Such interpretation cannot be given to a transfer order which was
issued or initiated on the basis of a request made by the individual
Officer. Ordinarily, when a transfer order is made on request, the
seniority of the person concerned at the place of posting where the

Page No.# 8/15
choice is indicated, if such a seniority list is maintained, is normally
at the bottom of such seniority list although such is not case here.
The facts remains that the reasons placed before the Court by the
Department do not inspire confidence to return a finding that the
impugned transfer order dated 20-06-2025 was issued in public
interest/public service.
22. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. Impugned transfer
order dated 20-06-2025 stands interfered with and set aside.
Concerned Department shall pass consequential order forthwith.”
8. On the basis of the above conclusions, the learned
Coordinate Bench of this Court interfered with the transfer order
and directed the Respondent Authorities to pass consequential
orders forthwith. This direction for passing consequential orders
forthwith is relevant when this Court would deal with the
directions which have been passed by the learned Division Bench
of this Court in the order dated 18.12.2025.
9. The records reveal that being aggrieved, the Respondent
No.5 preferred a Writ Appeal against the order dated
02.12.2025. The said Writ Appeal was registered and numbered
WA No.409/2025. The learned Division Bench of this Court
categorically observed that vide the impugned order, i.e. the
order dated 02.12.2025, a fresh order of transfer was required to
be passed accommodating both the Appellants (the Respondent

Page No.# 9/15
No. 5 herein) and the Respondent No.1 (the Petitioner herein),
and as such, directed that such an order be passed
notwithstanding the pendency of the Appeal.
10. In the above context, let this Court now analyze the
Notification dated 11.03.2026. The transfer order dated
20.06.2025 was interfered by the learned Coordinate Bench of
this Court vide the order dated 02.12.2025. While interfering
with the said transfer order dated 20.06.2025, the learned
Coordinate Bench further made it clear that there would be a
necessity of passing consequential directions, which meant that
the specific administrative orders have now to be issued in view
of the interference with the transfer order dated 20.06.2025. The
learned Division Bench of this Court neither did stay the
directions so passed in the order dated 02.12.2025, rather made
it explicitly clear that as the learned Coordinate Bench of this
Court had directed for passing of consequential order, such order
be passed irrespective of the pendency of the Appeal.
11. In the above context, if this Court now takes note of the
Notification dated 11.03.2026 which is impugned in the instant
proceedings, it is surprising and shocking to take note of that the
Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Labour Welfare
Department failed to appreciate the directions passed in the
order dated 02.12.2025 as well as, the direction passed by the

Page No.# 10/15
learned Division Bench dated 18.12.2025. Though it is mentioned
in the impugned Notification that it is in compliance to the
directions passed by the learned Coordinate Bench in the order
dated 02.12.2025 as well as the learned Division Bench dated
18.12.2025, but on the other hand, it again reiterates the
transfer order dated 20.06.2025. The impugned Notification in
the opinion of this Court, is contrary to the directions passed in
the order dated 02.12.2025 by the learned Coordinate Bench as
well as the order passed by the learned Division Bench dated
18.12.2025. Rather, it is in violation to the directions passed by
this Court.
12. The directions which were passed by the learned
Coordinate Bench as well as the learned Division Bench were
explicitly clear and the impugned Notification which has been
passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam,
Labour Welfare Department is on the face of it transgresses upon
the directions.
13. Consequently, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that
the impugned Notification dated 11.03.2026 cannot be sustained
in law.
14. This Court finds it relevant to take note of another aspect
which touches on the jurisdiction of the Labour Department to

Page No.# 11/15
even issue the impugned Notification. The Labour Courts as well
as the Industrial Tribunals come within the ambit of Subordinate
Courts as mentioned in Chapter VI of Part VI of the Constitution.
As the Industrial Tribunals and the Labour Courts are construed
by settled principles of law to be Subordinate Courts and this
aspect is duly recognized aspect, it is difficult to comprehend
how the Labour Department could have at all exercised the
jurisdiction to issue the transfer Notification without taking into
consideration Article 235 of the Constitution. It is only the
Gauhati High Court in exercise of powers under Article 235 of the
Constitution who would have the control in respect to posting of
the persons belonging to the judicial service which include the
Officers and Ministerial Staff of the Labour Court/Industrial
Tribunal. The impugned Notification on the face of it was without
jurisdiction. In this regard, this Court finds it relevant to take
note of the judgment of this Court in the case of Dilip Kumar
Devasarma vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2026: GAU-

AS:7158 wherein this Court held that the post of the Registrar,
Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts would come within the ambit
of officers and staff of the Subordinate Courts and therefore
under the control of the Gauhati High Court in terms with Article
235 of the Constitution. Paragraph Nos.64, 65 and 74(B) and
74(C) being relevant are quoted herein below:-

Page No.# 12/15
64. From the above quoted paragraphs, it is clear that the Labour
Courts and Industrial Tribunals come within the ambit of Article 235
of the Constitution. Now applying the principles laid down by the
Supreme Court in the case of R. Perachi (supra) and R. M. Gujjar
(supra), the ministerial staff would come within the preview of
Article 235 of the Constitution.

This position is duly admitted by the State of Assam as would
be seen from the communications dated 01.02.2006 and
23.08.2006, issued by the concerned officials of the State of Assam.
It is also apposite to observe that the communications dated
18.12.2010 and 12.01.2011 read with the Notification dated
30.07.2012 also clearly indicate that the State of Assam had all
along held that the Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals are
Subordinate Courts and had bestowed the benefits arising out of the
Shetty Commission recommendations w.e.f. 01.04.2003 upon all
ministerial officers and staff of the Labour Courts/Industrial
Tribunals except the post of the Registrar.
65. The above analysis would therefore show that not only the
Presiding Officers of the Labour Courts/ Industrial Tribunals but also
the ministerial officers and staff would come under the control of
the Gauhati High Court. This would include the post of the Registrar
of the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal in the State of Assam. In this
regard, it is relevant to take note of the Resolution No. 5 of the
Minutes of the Meeting dated 05.10.2012 of the Committee
constituted by the Hon’ble Chief Justice for consideration of the
Shetty Commission's recommendations on revision of pay scale etc.

Page No.# 13/15
of the Subordinate Courts staff of Assam wherein it was
recommended that the post of the Registrar of the Industrial
Tribunal/Labour Court should be granted the same Scale of Pay to
that of the Sheristadar/Chief Administrative Officer of the
establishment of the District Judges.
It is the opinion of this Court that as the Gauhati High Court
has the absolute control vested upon it by Article 235 of the
Constitution over the Subordinate Courts which includes the
Ministerial officers and staff of the Labour Courts/Industrial
Tribunals, it is only the Gauhati High Court on the administrative
side who would be the competent authority to decide on the aspect
pertaining to parity of employment and status of the post vis-a-vis
another post both falling within the 'Subordinate Courts'. Neither the
Finance Department nor the Assam Pay Commission can decide the
said aspect. The aforesaid opinion of this Court finds support from
the opinion expressed by the learned Division Bench of the Gujarat
High Court, in the case of Industrial Courts Employees Association
(supra) and more particularly, paragraph No. 10 which is quoted
hereinbelow:-
“ 10. After the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, there
is no scope of any further argument that the Labour and the
Industrial Court would not constitute part of the judicial
services. Thus, the labour and the industrial courts functioning
within the State are all District Courts and consequently, the
non-judicial staffs attached to those labour and industrial
courts are the staffs of the District Court under the

Page No.# 14/15
Supervision of the principal judge of the Industrial Court.
Thus, their appointment and service shall also under the
control of the High Court like other staff of the District Courts.”

Under such circumstances, the rejection of the proposal which
was made on the basis of the Resolution No. 5 of the Minutes of the
Meeting dated 05.10.2022 by the Finance Department of the
Government of Assam lacked competence and can be termed as an
act of arbitrariness which violates the mandate of Article 14 of the
Constitution.
74. (B) The non-judicial officers and staff of the Labour
Courts/Industrial Tribunals in the State of Assam which includes the
post of the Registrar, Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts would come
within the ambit of officers and staff of the Subordinate Courts and
therefore under the control of the Gauhati High Court in terms with
Article 235 of the Constitution.
(C) The post of the Registrar, Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunals
would come under the control vested upon the Gauhati High Court
under Article 235 of the Constitution irrespective of the fact that the
person is appointed by the Judicial Department or the Labour
Department.”
15. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with
the following observations and directions:-
(i) The impugned notification dated 11.03.2026 is contrary
to the directions passed by the learned Coordinate Bench of

Page No.# 15/15
this Court dated 02.12.2025, passed in WP(C)
No.3585/2025 as well as the order passed by the learned
Division Bench dated 18.12.2025 passed in WA
No.409/2025, and as such, the same is set aside and
quashed.
(ii) This Court further observes and declares that the
Petitioner herein (i.e. Smt. Polly Koch) would be deemed to
be posted as the Registrar, Labour Court Guwahati and the
Respondent No.5 shall be deemed to be posted as Registrar,
Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh in view of setting aside and
quashing the Notification dated 11.03.2026.
(iii) The power exercised by the Labour Department to
transfer the Petitioner and the Respondent No.5 vide the
impugned Notification dated 11.03.2026 and the earlier
Notification dated 20.06.2025 were contrary to Article 235
of the Constitution and as such without jurisdiction and
authority of law.
(iv) There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE
Pradip Kumar Kalita
Comparing Assistant
Digitally signed by Pradip Kumar Kalita
Date: 2026.06.26 11:26:44 +05'30'