1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties taken up for the final hearing.

3. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 1st July, 2016 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No.476 of 2012 dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner challenging his transfer from Mahape, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra to Mysore, Karnataka with effect from 31st October, 2012.

4. The brief facts leading up to the present challenge are as follows : Respondent No.1 was at all the material times the employer of the petitioner. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the Chairman and Deputy General Manager, Human Resources & Personnel of respondent no.1. They are stated to be responsible for transferring the petitioner which according to the petitioner was illegal. On 23rd November, 1981 the petitioner joined respondent no.1 (company) as “Assistant Draughtsman” on probation and on completion of probation he was confirmed on 21st May, 1982. In 1987, he was promoted to the post of “Draughtsman-I” and in 1992 to the post of “Draughtsman-II”. On 1st April, 1999 he was promoted to the post of “Technical Assistant-I”. This according to the petitioner was not promotion but reduction in category. At all material times the petitioner worked in “Static Control Group” of the company. After putting in 20 years of service as a workman in Powai, he came to be transferred to Mahape, Navi Mumbai along with the technical staff and other draughtsmen, all employees of Powai. According to the petitioner, the department was re-named as “Automation System Center (ASC) and later as “Control and Automation department”. The petitioner was designated a 'Supervisor' but only for sake of convenience since he was a Union leader and the company did not want him to continue as a “workman” so as to curtail his union activities. According to the petitioner on 24th June, 2002 he was surrounded by the officers of the company in a locked room and asked to retire voluntarily or accept the new terms of employment. The petitioner refused to resign and therefore he was forced to accept new terms of employment under a “supervisory” cadre. His monthly earnings were also reduced. He was coerced to work under the control and supervision of Mr. Sudhanshu Gupta and the Project Heads of various projects and while discharging his clerical duties, he was engaged in preparation of purchase requests of additional material, services for vehicles, guest houses, maintaining a record of vehicles and guest houses, records of salary of contract employees, expenses incurred at site, depositing cheques received at site, delivering safety equipments to site commissioning engineers and the like. 16 sets of duties are set out by the petitioner. Although he was stated to be in “supervisory” cadre, workmen were getting higher wages including those who were junior to the petitioner. The petitioner contends that he accepted lesser wages under duress and force since he was in need of employment. From 2008 to 2014 he was elected and acted as Vice President of Larsen and Toubro Officers Association (LTOSA). He has relied upon a copy of the registration certificate of LTOSA as a trade union. He took up various issues on behalf of the members of LTOSA and as a result he was disliked and thereafter he was regularly harassed. On one occasion he was asked to attend a certain site in Indore and caused him to travel by road, yet he obliged. The harassment resulted in the petitioner's wife registering certain grievances with the company. By a letter dated 8th October, 2012 he was transferred to Mysore, Karnataka with malafide intention. The transfer occasioned by virtue of a Talent Acquisition Request (TAR) whereby one Mr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta sought placement of an employee at Mysore in the stores department under the post of Supervisor-cum-Executive.

5. Mr. Singhvi, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted