Back
2025 Supreme(Cal) 631
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
M/s. Dolphin Agencies Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors. - Respondent
WPA 11284 of 2012 with WPA 33547 of 2013
Decided On : 01-08-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Sarmila Das.
For the Respondent: Mr. Balaram Patra, Mr. Suvadip Bhattacharjee.
Important Points
Subject
Employment Law - Industrial Disputes/Transfer of Employment
Act Referred
Headnote
Facts of the case:
Employee challenged transfer order and subsequent termination by filing disputes across multiple tribunals resulting in reinstatement orders. The key issue revolved around employee’s non-compliance with the transfer order and the legality of revised tribunal directives.
Findings of Court:
The High Court determined the employee was not entitled to any back wages or benefits due to non-compliance with transfer requirements and upheld the validity of the original transfer.
Issues: The main questions were whether the transfer order was justified and the employee's entitlement to remuneration post-reinstatement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that a workman must comply with a valid transfer order, and failure to do so negates entitlement to wage claims for the disputed period.
Result: Writ applications allowed, and the previous tribunal orders were set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to industrial tribunal orders (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. employment history and transfer orders (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 12) |
| 3. respondent's compliance and request for allowances (Para 7 , 8 , 10) |
| 4. adjudication on transfer disputes (Para 11 , 13 , 19) |
| 5. transfer legality and implications of previous orders (Para 18 , 20 , 23) |
| 6. court's analysis of transfer justification (Para 24 , 25 , 27) |
| 7. final adjudication dismissal of claims (Para 29 , 30) |
| 8. conclusion and order issuance (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
JUDGMENT :
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
1. The writ application in WPA 11284 of 2012 has been preferred challenging an order dated 29.02.2012 passed by the learned Eighth Industrial Tribunal in Case No. VIII-4 of 2004 under Section 10 read with Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. The writ application in WPA 33547 of 2013 has been preferred challenging an order dated 27.08.2013 passed by the learned 1st Labour Court, West Bengal in Case No. COMP. 17/2012. Where the tribunal ordered:-
“ORDERED
that the application under Section 33C Clause 2 of the I.D. Act brought by the applicant is allowed on contest without any cost. The applicant do get an order of the amount as claimed against the opposite party i.e. Rs. 7,74805/- and interest to the tune of RS. 79,970/- in total Rs. 8,54775/- (Rupees Eight lakh Fifty Four thousand Seven hundred Seventy Five only). The opposite party M/s. Dolphin Agency Pvt. Ltd. is directed to pay the said amount to the applicant Sri Ajoy Kumar Ray within months positively, failing which the applicant is at liberty to recover the said computed amount as per law.
Sd/-
Judge
First Labour Court
Kolkata, W.B.”
3. The petitioners’ case herein is that the respondent no. 3 was employed in the service of the petitioner/Company on 20.07.1988 as a Technician on certain terms and conditions, which was accepted by him on 29.07.1988. In the said letter there was a condition, inter alia, in Clause 7 that he would be initially stationed at Calcutta and might be transferred to any other establishment of the Company at any time decided by the Company.
4. The Management of the petitioner opened a branch in New Delhi where they required a few Technicians. Accordingly the petitioner Company due to exigency of work transferred the Respondent No. 3 by their letter dated 18.12.1995 and asked him to join on 01.01.1996 at its New Delhi Office situated at E-34, 11th Floor, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001.
5. The Respondent No. 3 did not comply with the order of the company for which the company terminated him from service with effect from 01.01.1996 by its letter dated 12.03.1996.
6. The Respondent No. 3 raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Ld. Eighth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, Kolkata by the Government of West Bengal, which was decided by the said Ld. Tribunal, who passed an Award on 28.01.1998, directing the Petitioner to reinstate Respondent No. 3 with full back wages.
7. The petitioner in compliance with the direction made in the Award reinstated the Respondent No. 3 by the letter dated 18.01.1999 and advised him to take up his employment with the Company at New Delhi Office, still being his place of posting.
8. The Respondent No. 3 after receiving the aforesaid letter informed the petitioner by his letter dated 28.01.1999 that he was ready to go to Delhi if the Company gives him an advance of Rs.50,000/-, provide him an accommodation at Delhi or pay the actual house rent to be paid by him and pay the D.A. as applicable at Delhi.
9. The Respondent No. 3 filed an application u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Ld. First Labour Court. The Ld. First Labour Court passed an order for payment of money due, which was duly paid by the Petitioner.
10. Being aggrieved the company filed a Writ Petition being No. W.P. 5818 (W) of 2001 and the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to pass an order dated 13.06.2001 dismissing the writ application.
11. Being aggrieved by the order of transfer by
