JUDGMENT 1. LAW Courts would be loath to interfere in regard to the discharge of managerial function as otherwise there would have to be a constant superintendence by the courts over the affairs of the Companies or Corporations or any other governmental agency. The expression "managerial Prerogative" is no" a meaningless jargon but has a definite connotation in English Language. This is not, however, to be taken as such that managerial. prerogative ought not to be interfered with under any circumstances. If such managerial prerogative is used in a manner contrary to law or arbitrary in nature, it would be definitely within the jurisdiction of the Law Courts to interfere and set right the wrong. To remedy the wrong is a plain exercise of judicial power and there ought not to be any hesitation in that regard. 2. IN this petition the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to revoke or cancel or withdraw the agreement dated November 29, 1985 between the All India coordination Committee of SAIL Employees Unions (AICC) and the Steel authority of India as also for revocation of the order of transfer and redeployment dated 17th of December 1986 and 29th December 1986 where under the petitioners were deployed to another unit of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Before, however, proceeding further in the matter, a brief reference to facts ought to be made at this juncture. On and since 24th January, 1973, the Central Government reconstituted the organisational set up of all the Public Sector Steel Plants by reason where for a holding company viz. Steel Authority of India Ltd. was incorporated as Government Company in place of Hindustan Steel Ltd. and it became the successor-in-interest of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Steel authority of India is a Government Company in which 100% shares are held by the Central Government. In 1974 another Government Company by the name of SAIL International Ltd. was formed for exclusively dealing with export and import connected with the Steel Industry and in particular the Public Sector Steel Plants. The non-executive posts of the SAIL International Ltd. were manned by copters from the Central Sales Organisation and also by direct recruits. In 1974 another Government Company by the name of SAIL International Ltd. was formed for exclusively dealing with export and import connected with the Steel Industry and in particular the Public Sector Steel Plants. The non-executive posts of the SAIL International Ltd. were manned by copters from the Central Sales Organisation and also by direct recruits. A few employees of the Centra Transport and Shipping Organisations were, however directed to work in the Government company and they continued to draw their pay and allowances from the city S. C. at Calcutta. 3. ORIGINALLY there was a Union known as the Association of Hindus than Steel Employees. On 3rd July 1969 there was a bipartite agreement under Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 between the management of the Hindustan Steel Ltd and the Association. Subsequently, however, another bipartite agreement was arrived at on or about March 1973, whereby certain requirements and promotion rules were formulated by rule 10 of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. It was provided that where posting from one station to another on promotion is involved, such posts will be filled from amongst volunteers who are willing to be considered against such posts. Application for such posts will be invited giving 'at least 21 dates time. It was contended by the petitioner that even Rule 10 of the Recruitment Rules provide that transfer even on promotion would always be at the option of the employee concerned, and not otherwise. The petitioners contended that immediately on formation of SAIL International Ltd., there was some apprehension amongst the employees of SAIL that they may be transferred outside Calcutta by reason where for there were certain discussions and the then Director (Personnel) assured the sail Employees that the non-executive staff of CSO and CTSO will not be disturbed in respect of their service conditions by any re-organisation. It is said to have been assured than the employees will also not be shifted against their will as a result of any re-organisation. In 1974 AICC was formed and or 10th March 1979 a tripartite agreement was arrived at between AICC and the Management of the Central Marketing Organisation of SAIL regarding recruitment, promotion and transfer policy. It is said to have been assured than the employees will also not be shifted against their will as a result of any re-organisation. In 1974 AICC was formed and or 10th March 1979 a tripartite agreement was arrived at between AICC and the Management of the Central Marketing Organisation of SAIL regarding recruitment, promotion and transfer policy. Clause 22, which has been relied upon heavily by the petitioners being said to be the only clause as regards the orders of transfers, records that 'the management reserves the right to transfer employees in cases where the reasons cannot be disclosed in the interest of the company. The petitioners' definite case is that clause 22 was included with the object of enabling transfer of employees under suspicion of corruption and subject to C. B. I, or Vigilance enquiry in which case there would be grave risk of tampering with papers and documents, if they are left in the office. 4. WITHOUT, however, going into the issues and the rival contentions as regards clause 22, the factual aspect subsequent to such an agreement ought also to be noted. In 1978 the two organisations, viz., CTSO and CSO were integrated into one, viz. Central Marketing Organisation and the said CTSO and CSQ became two departments of the Central Marketing Organisations. At the time of integration, however, the Executives of both the departments were brought under a common integrated gradation list and as regards non-Executives, separate gradation lists were continued to be maintained in respect of the two departments. Subsequently, there was re-structuring of public sector Iron and Steel Companies and the Central government enacted Public Sector Iron and Steel Re-structuring and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1978. The SAIL International Ltd., which was functioning prior to the enactment of the said stature, was directed to be wound up and the entire work of SAIL International Ltd. was entrusted to the central Marketing Organisation of SAIL in Calcutta with effect from 1st may 1978. The SAIL International Ltd., which was functioning prior to the enactment of the said stature, was directed to be wound up and the entire work of SAIL International Ltd. was entrusted to the central Marketing Organisation of SAIL in Calcutta with effect from 1st may 1978. After the winding up of the SAIL International Ltd., the works of the Company were entrusted to the Home Sales Department of the central Marketing Organisation as, noted above, but certain dispute and difficulties arose regarding the absorption of the staff as regards the SAIL international Ltd. Ultimately, a tripartite agreement was arrived on March is, 1980 between the AICC and the Management of the Central Marketing organisation of SAIL, It appears that since the agreement of March 1980, one section of the employees was dissatisfied on the grounds that the agreement took "a very narrow parochial attitude" in not looking after the interests of the staff of Transport and Shipping Department; by reason where for another Union, viz., SAIL Employees Union, Calcutta, was formed in 1983. On 29th November 1985, the AICC and the management of CMO of SAIL entered into a bipartite agreement in pursuance of the proposal of the management for modification of promotion and transfer policy for non-Executive employees of CMO. Clause 4. 3 provides, "the exact number to be deployed may be determined after O and M Study. The views of AICC will be taken into consideration before finalising decision on O and M Study". 5. Clause 4. 5, however, provider merger of seniorities of Heme sales Transport and Shipping Departments. According to the petitioners the proposed merger in terms of the agreement is unjust, unreasonable, unfair and arbitrary. Strenuous submissions have been made on that score by both the parties. But, in my view, writ court is not proper the forum to ventilate such a grievance. Appropriate remedies are available in law for such a challenge to the bipartite settlement between the AICC and the respondent authority. It appears that after the formation of a new union, inter-union rivalry as may or may not have created, some problems for which the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked, though, however, maintainability of the writ petition cannot; be doubted by reason Of positive act in passing the orders of transfer by the respondent-authority. It appears that after the formation of a new union, inter-union rivalry as may or may not have created, some problems for which the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked, though, however, maintainability of the writ petition cannot; be doubted by reason Of positive act in passing the orders of transfer by the respondent-authority. I need not have dealt with the matter in such great detail,but judicial conscience dictated me to deal with the submissions, since the petitioner's case before the Court was that the order of transfer is an after-math of such a bipartite settlement. Admittedly, such a bipartite settlement existed and orders of transfer were effected in terms and in accordance therewith. Let us now, therefore, consider as to whether the transfer orders can said to be arbitrary or malafide or for reasons unknowns to law entitling the Court, therefore, to exercise the jurisdiction in the matter and to set right the wrong if any. From the affidavits and counter affidavits it appears that CMO/sail ascertains manning and men in position of non-Executive employees as on 1st January each year in order to communicate to the AICC by 31st january each year. This practice of ascertainment is in terms with the clause 4 of the tripartite settlement dated 10th March 1979 between AICC and CMO Managements. Whereas,. the petitioners contended that in O and m Study report question of any employee without sufficient work or without work does not and cannot arise, the respondents submitted that as a consequence of the transfer of canalising work to MMTC the work in the transport and Shipping Department has already been reduced and the impact was that in many offices of Transport and Shipping Department employees were found to be without sufficient work or without work, by reason where for discussions were effected from time to time with AICC and AICC also considered the matter keeping in view the prevailing situation. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that the situation was properly examined and- it was found that the work in the Calcutta Stock-Yards of the Transport and Shipping Department was reduced to almost Zero level, since there was no export and import work to be handled through these stock yards for which for which they had been set up. But Mill those stock yards were being used for handling materials meant for the Home Sales department. But Mill those stock yards were being used for handling materials meant for the Home Sales department. The respondent further stated that the impact of transfer of import work of MMTC was that the work in the export and import department as also in the Transport and Shipping Department was substantially reduced and only those imports which were already in the pipeline were to be handled by the Transport and Shipping Department and also were to continue only for a few months. It was stated that the impact of transfer of the import work forced the management of CMO / SAIL to close down its various transport and shipping offices. The branch offices of transport and shipping at Cochin had to be closed and so also, the office at Bombay. As regards the Home Sales Department some of the branches had to be closed for commercial reasons viz., the Tinsukia Branch was closed and the employees were redeployed in consultation with AICC. Similarly, the branch office at Dhanbad had also to be closed and the employees were re-deployed as also transferred in consultation with the AICC. 5. STRENUOUS submissions have also been made as regards deployments from the Home Sales Department and Transport and Shipping Department in a manner which is said to be highly discriminatory. But from the records it appears that the order of deployment issued by the management of cmo/ SAIL dated 30th December 1986 out of 9 employees, 8 were from home Sales Department. The respondent's definite case is that re-deployment was not done only for the purpose of redeployment but suitability and the job requirement were also taken into account before re-deploying of employees. I find some justification in the criticism of Dr. Pal against petitioners' submission that the re-deployment should have been made department-wise and not requirement-wise. In the counter affidavit and the supplementary affidavit filed by the respondent, sufficient justification for re-deployment and/or transfer have been stated which in my view, cannot be termed to be malafide. The expression "malafide" has a definite connotation in English Language. There must be proper evidence on record for such a statement to be justified but in my view, no sufficient evidence has be adduced by the petitioners to interfere with the order of transfer and/or re-deployment. The expression "malafide" has a definite connotation in English Language. There must be proper evidence on record for such a statement to be justified but in my view, no sufficient evidence has be adduced by the petitioners to interfere with the order of transfer and/or re-deployment. In the event the management comes to a decision that there is not sufficient work in the Transport and Shipping Department by reason where for re-deployment or transfer of employees have been necessitated, the writ Court cannot and ought not to go into the issue any further. While it is true that while dealing with the matter of deployment of transfer, writ Court can crack the shell and ascertain for itself what was the real motive. But in the case under consideration on the basis of the evidence adduced, in my view, it cannot be said to be malafide abuse of power resulting in the order of re-deployment. Decisions cited from the Bar does not in any way lend assistance to the mater in issue and as such, 1 need not dilate much on that score. 6. CONSIDERING the above, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. All interim orders are vacated. No order as to costs. Prayer for stay is made and there will be a stay for a period of one week from today. Petition dismissed.