JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Mumbai, dated 30th March, 1998 in Complaint (ULP) No. 107/98.

2. The respondent herein filed the aforesaid complaint before the Industrial Court for a declaration that the petitioners herein have engaged and are engaging in unfair labour practices under Item Nos. 3, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity). The respondent further prayed for a direction against the petitioners to cease and desist from continuing to engage in unfair labour practices referred to above. The main ground on which the respondent approached the Industrial Court, by way of complaint under the said Act, was that, when she had joined the services of the petitioner company, there was no agreement between the respondent and the petitioner company that the services of respondent were transferable at any other place; whereas the petitioner company by the impugned action wanted to transfer her from its Mumbai Office to Delhi Office, which was admittedly established much after the respondent had joined the services of the petitioner company.

3. The relevant dates for the adjudication of the present matter and the brief facts are that; admittedly, the respondent joined the services of the petitioner company on 10th November, 1993 without any written appointment order. It is relevant to note that when the respondent joined services of the petitioner company, there was only one office of the petitioner company in Mumbai. There is nothing on record to indicate that, at the relevant time the petitioner company had made its intention known to the respondent, that they would start office at other places outside Mumbai, and that the respondent was likely to be transferred to such places as and when occasion arises. It is also relevant to note that, at the relevant time the petitioner company was a private limited company and was converted into a public limited company only on 8th July, 1994. After the petitioner company became a public limited company, it is stated that the petitioner company framed rules and regulations to govern the terms, conditions and privileges of employment for their employees placed at the corporate office and the regional offices. It is stated that the said rules and regulations were circulated and made known to the employees engaged with the petitioner company before making the same effective from 1st August, 1995.

4. No doubt, one of the rules, viz. Rule 2.16 specifically deals with the issue of transfer of services of the employees of the company. Rule 2.16 specifically states that the company reserves right to transfer the services of the employees to any of its associate concerns or offices in India on the same terms and conditions of appointment.

5. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner company established its office at Delhi some time in November, 1995 and another at Chennai in September, 1995. Obviously, on the strength of the abovesaid rules, the petitioner company issued impugned transfer order on 12th January, 1998, transferring the services of the respondent from its Mumbai office to Delhi office. The said order directed the respondent to report to the Delhi office on 19th January, 1998 at 10.00 a.m. and the respondent was called upon to hand-over charge with immediate effect to Mr. K.R. Vijayan. This order has been issued by the company Secretary of the petitioner company. As per the directions issued in the said transfer order, the respondent handed over charge to the named officer on 13th January, 1998. The respondent, however, was seriously aggrieved by the said transfer order and therefore immediately preferred the complaint before the Industrial Court at Mumbai, alleging that the petitioner company has en

Click Here to Read the rest of this document