Unsupported allegations of bias do not justify transferring pending labour proceedings.

The petitioner, a facility-management company providing housekeeping services to Government Medical Colleges and Hospitals, employed respondents 3 to 26 as housekeeping workers during 2022–2025.

The petitioner alleged that the employees remained unauthorisedly absent and failed to perform their contractual duties, resulting in disruption of services. Disciplinary proceedings were consequently initiated against them, which the petitioner asserted were unrelated to any trade-union activity.

The employees approached the Deputy Commissioner of Labour concerning the disciplinary action, subsistence allowance, and other reliefs. During those proceedings, an ex parte order was allegedly passed when the petitioner’s counsel was absent.

The petitioner thereafter sought to file an application to set aside the ex parte order, but claimed that the second respondent initially refused to receive it, while accepting the employees’ proof affidavit and recording their evidence.

The petitioner submitted a representation dated 6 July 2026 to the first respondent seeking transfer of the proceedings pending before the second respondent, the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Erode, to a competent authority at Salem. As no order was passed on the representation, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking its disposal.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution requiring the first respondent to consider and dispose of its representation dated 6 July 2026 seeking transfer of the labour proceedings.

2. Whether the allegations concerning refusal to receive the petitioner’s application, passing of an ex parte order, and alleged statements by the employees established sufficient bias, arbitrariness, or reasonable apprehension of unfairness to justify transfer of the proceedings.

The Court applied the principles governing judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, under which interference requires adequate material demonstrating arbitrariness, illegality, or a legally actionable violation; a mere apprehension unsupported by evidence is insufficient.

In relation to transfer of proceedings, the Court treated allegations of bias or unfairness as requiring substantiation through cogent and corroborative material.

The Court further held that the alleged non-receipt of an application or the passing of an ex parte order, by themselves, do not establish bias or arbitrariness.

The Court found that the materials placed before it did not establish that the second respondent had acted arbitrarily or in a manner warranting transfer of the proceedings.

The petitioner’s allegations regarding refusal to receive its application and the ex parte order were considered insufficient, without further proof, to demonstrate institutional bias or procedural unfairness.

Similarly, the alleged statements by the employees concerning reinstatement and compensation were unsupported by corroborative evidence and therefore did not justify invoking the Court’s writ jurisdiction.

Although the Court declined to grant relief on the merits of the transfer request, it recognised that the writ petition formally sought disposal of the pending representation and therefore left the first respondent free to decide that representation independently on its merits.

However, the first respondent was left at liberty to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 6 July 2026 on its own merits, without being influenced by the observations in the judgment.

The writ petition was accordingly ordered, with no order as to costs.