Termination of service for refusal to comply with a transfer order amounts to "retrenchment" within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, if the employer has not complied with the provisions of Section 25f of the Act.

1. IN this appeal, the appellant Bayer (India) Ltd., has challenged the propriety of the judgment of Amitabha Dutta J, whereby the learned Judge quashed the award of the first Labour Court, West Bengal and made absolute the Rule Nisi issued, on the application of the respondent no. 1, bishan Roy, under Article 226 of the constitution.

2. THE respondent no. 1, Bishan Roy, was employed in the office of the appellant company at Calcutta and was driving a tempo belonging to the company. As the tempo and three other motor cars were disposed of by the company, the respondent no. 1 and three other drivers had no work in Calcutta. They were given the choice of other places in the organisation of the company, where the company had vacancies in the posts of drivers at the material time. The company by its letter dated February 5, 1976 directed the respondent no, 1 to report for duty on or before February 27, 1976 at-Kishanpure, Hanamkonda, District warangal, Andhra Pradesh. In other words, the respondent no. 1 was transferred from Calcutta to the office of the company in' Andhra Pradesh. It is the case of the company that while the three other drivers accepted their transfers, the respondent no. 1 by his letter dated February 21, 1976 took the plea that his services were not transferable, and that he was not in a position to accept the offer of transfer because of various difficulties of himself and his family, He requested "the Regional Administrative manager of the company, to consider his grievances and family difficulties and his past loyal services and to retain him in the service of the company in Calcutta. The company, however, could not accede to the request of the respondent no. 1 and, by its letter dated March 22, 1976, the company terminated the services of the respondent no. 1 with immediate effect, enclosing therein one cheque for the sum of Rs.750.47 being one month's salary in lieu of notice. The respondent no. 1 by his letter dated April 6, 1976 protested against the termination of his service and claimed reinstatement with back wages. It appears that the matter was referred to the Labour commissioner, Government of West Bengal, and a conciliation proceeding was started. The conciliation proceeding failed and the Government of West Bengal by a notification dated March 17, 1977 issued under section 10 read with section 2a of' the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred to the First Labour Court for the adjudication of the following dispute "whether the termination of service of Sri Bishan Roy is justified? to what relief, if any, is he entitled?"

Before the Labour Court, it was contended on behalf of the respondent no. 1, the workman, that the termination of his service was nothing but "retrenchment" within the meaning of section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the act, and as admittedly no retrenchment compensation as envisaged by section 25f of the Act was paid to him by the company, the order of termination should be set aside and he should be re instated in service with full back wages and other benefits, if any. It was also contended on behalf of the workman that his services were not transferable. The Labour Court by its award dated June 28, 1979 came to the findings that the services of the workman were transferable, and that the termination of nis services for his failure to comply with the order of transfer did not constitute retrenchment within the meaning of section 2 (oo) of the Act in that view of the matter, the Labour Court by its award held that the termination of the service of the workman was justified, and that he was not entitled to any relief.

3. BEING aggrieved by the award of the labour Court the respondent no. 1 filed a writ petition in this Court and obtained the Rule Nisi. As stated already, the learned Judge by his judgment and order quashed the award of the Labour court holding, inter alia, that the termination of the service of the respondent no. 1