Back
2005 Supreme(Chh) 3
2005(2) C.G.L.J. 440
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
HON'BLE SHRI FAKHRUDDIN, J.
FERRO SCRAP NIGAM LIMITED....Petitioner
VERSUS
B.P. SHARMA AND OTHERS….Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 2007 OF 2004
Decided on : 06/01/2005
Petitioner by Shri Ravish Agrawal, Sr. Adv. with Shri P.S. Koshy, Advocate and Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate.
Respondent No. 1 by Shri Pradeep Saxena, Advocate.
The judgment establishes that transfer is an exigency of service and no employee has a legal right to be posted forever at a particular place. It also emphasizes the importance of maintaining seniority and promotional aspects for employees.
Headnote:
Transfer - Labour Dispute - C.G. Industrial Relations Act, Section 31(3), Section 61 - The judgment discusses the legality of the transfer order issued by the petitioner-company and the employee's right to challenge the transfer. It also delves into the interpretation of the Certified Standing Orders Act and its applicability to matters of transfer.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, an employee of the petitioner-company, challenged a transfer order issued by the company. The Labour Court and Industrial Court ruled in favor of the employee, quashing the transfer order. The petitioner appealed the decision, leading to the current petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the transfer was an exigency of service and that the employee had no legal right to be posted forever at a particular place. The Court also found that the transfer was not made with malafide intention and that the seniority and promotional aspects of the employee would be maintained.
Issues: The issues included the legality of the transfer order, malafide intention behind the transfer, and the impact of the transfer on the employee's seniority and promotional aspects.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that no employee has a legal right to be posted forever at a particular place and that transfer is a condition of service. It also highlighted the importance of maintaining seniority and promotional aspects for the employee.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the orders of the Industrial Court and Labour Court, directing the employee to join at the new location and make a representation if facing difficulties, which would be decided on its own merits.
By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order Annexure P-1 passed by the Industrial Court dated 28th June 2004 confirming the order Annexure P- 2 dated 25-2-2004 passed by the Labour Court, Durg.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 B.P. Sharma is an employee of petitioner-company. He was transferred from Bhilai unit of petitioner's company to its Duburi unit in Orissa as per order dated 25-8-2003 Annexure P-3.
3. It is stated that the respondent No. 1 was relieved on 26-8-2003 as per Annexure P-4. It is further stated that these orders were acknowledged by the respondent no. 1 and the acknowledgement is Annexure P-5. It is stated that the respondent No. 1 filed an application on 26-8-2003 before the Industrial Court for stay of transfer order in another promotion case. The Industrial Court granted interim relief on 27-8-2003 in that case and the said order was confirmed on 8-9-2003. It is stated that final order in that promotion case was passed on 5-11-2003.
4. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 31(3) read with Section 61 of C.G. Industrial Relations Act before the Labour Court. It is further stated that an application under Section 107 of the Act for stay of transfer was also filed before the Labour Court, Durg. The Labour Court rejected the application on 10-11-2003 as per Annexure P-8. This order Annexure P-8 was challenged by the respondent no. 1 before the Industrial Court and the learned Industrial Court set aside the order of the Labour Court as per order dated 28-11-2003 and granted stay till the disposal of the case and remanded the matter to the Labour Court to decide it within three months.
5. It is stated that against order dated 28-11- 2003, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court on 6-12-2003 bearing W.P. No. 4055/2003 challenging the order of the Industrial Court. It is also stated that this Court as per order dated 4-2- 2004 directed the Labour Court to decide the matter within one month. In compliance of the order dated 4- 2-2004 of this Court and that of Industrial Court dated 28-11-2003, the labour Court passed the order dated 25-2-2004 Annexure P-2.
6. Before the Labour Court parties were given opportunity to lead evidence. The respondent No. 1 examined himself and the petitioner Company examined two witnesses namely N.A. 1 Vinit Bhanja and N.A. 2 K.L. Patel. It is further pointed out that the Labour Court framed the following issues:- (i) Whether the transfer order of the applicant dated 25-8-2003 issued by the non-applicant is illegal?
(ii) Whether the transfer order has been passed with malafide intention ? If so, its effect ? (iii) Relief and cost ?
7. It is further pointed out that the learned Labour Court subdivided issue no. 1 into 5 questions:-
(a) Whether the transfer order was issued as the respondent no. 1 was not inclined to take V.R.S. for which the management had put pressure upon the employee?
(b) Whether the transfer order is liable to be interfered on medical ground?
(c) (i) Whether by virtue of transfer, his seniority and promotional aspects would be adversely affected?
(ii) Whether the transfer order has been issued during mid session?
(d) Whether the transfer order has been issued without any administrative exigency?
Whether the respondent No. 1 was deliberately relieved with immediate effect?
Whether the hot haste has been shown in transferring the respondent no. 1 and immediately relieving him and there being no material to show the urgent need, the said order has been issued only to harass the respondent no. 1?
(e) Whether the transfer order can be declared to be illegal as the place of transfer is very far?
8. It is stated that questions no. 1 and 2 were decided in favour of Management and questions No. 3, 4 and 5 were decided in favour of the employee. It is further submitted that the Labour Court
