The employer has the prerogative to decide on employee transfers, and the courts should not interfere unless the decisions are vitiated by mala fide or extraneous considerations.

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.

( 1 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated October 11, 2002 passed by learned Labour Court-X, karkardooma Court, Delhi whereby the Labour court held that the petitioner was guilty of wilful insubordination, disobedience of the employer's order which was a serious misconduct under Industrial law and the punishment of dismissal awarded to him from service on refusal to abide by the transfer orders passed by the management was not shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY, the facts are that the petitioner was appointed by the respondent as Office assistant in May, 1974 on a salary of Rs. 350 per month. Thereafter the petitioner continued getting annual increments and promotions. The petitioner was promoted as Commercial executive with increased salary of Rs. 1625 per month in May, 1987 and after promoting him as commercial executive he was transferred from delhi to Visakhapatnam office vide letter dated may 11,1987. The stand of the petitioner is that he was promoted and transferred to visakhapatnam because he was elected as general Secretary of the workers' union of the respondent organization. The management did not like this and promoted him and transferred him in order to harass him. The petitioner wrote several letters to the management explaining his inability to join the Visakhapatnam office but the management did not cancel the transfer orders and thereafter the management held a domestic inquiry and terminated his services. He alleged that even during domestic inquiry, violation of principles of natural justice took place.

( 3 ) THE management took the preliminary objections that the petitioner was not a workman while the petitioner has taken the stand that the domestic inquiry was not fair and proper. The Labour Court framed two preliminary issues:

"7. Whether claimant Shyam Sunder is a workman? if so, its effect? 2. Whether, the domestic enquiry conducted by the management is illegal unfair and against the principles of natural Justice?"

The Labour Court decided the issue whether the petitioner was a workman, in favour of the petitioner and about domestic inquiry being fair, in favour of the respondent management vide its order dated June 4, 2002. The Labour Court thereafter decided the reference vide order dated October 11, 2002 against the petitioner.

( 4 ) THE petitioner took the stand in the writ petition that his post was not at all transferable outside Delhi in terms of his appointment letter and the Labour Court wrongly held that his job was transferable. The petitioner regularly visited New Delhi Office of respondent from may 25, 1987 onwards but he was not allowed to enter into the office at New Delhi, rather the respondent threatened him with dire consequences if he entered into the New Delhi office of the respondent and issued a warning letter to him that if he attempted to enter into the new Delhi Office, that should be construed as a criminal trespass. He alleged that his transfer was mala fide and the Labour Court did not go into this aspect. He was transferred merely because he was elected as General Secretary of the Union. The Inquiry Officer completed the inquiry within a short period without supplying necessary documents to him and submitted the inquiry report to the disciplinary authority. Copy of the report was not furnished to him. No requirement was received by the respondent for an employee from its Visakhapatnam office but still the petitioner was transferred to that office. Under these circumstances, the award passed by the Labour Court was perverse and should be set aside.

( 5 ) THE plea of the petitioner that his job was not transferable outside Delhi is belied by the documents proved by the respondent. The respondent proved the standard application form filled by petitioner at the time of appointment of the petitioner. In the application form, a query was put to the petitioner, if he was prepared to move anywhere