Judicial review of transfer orders is limited to cases of mala fides or clear policy violations; routine administrative transfers do not warrant intervention.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Transfer of employees - The appellant challenged a transfer order asserting it contravened company policy and violated rights based on personal circumstances. The court upheld the transfer, emphasizing managerial discretion and lack of malafides, confirming the transfer was for administrative exigency and did not affect promotion opportunities. (Paras 10, 11, 16)

(B) Transfer Policy - Judicial intervention - The court stated that courts should only intervene in cases of mala fides or if the transfer is against policy; routine transfers do not warrant interference. (Paras 10, 13, 15)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, a Junior Chemist, contested a transfer to a different office, claiming it was arbitrary, violated policy regulations, affected seniority and lacked proper consent. The Single Judge's rejection of these claims led to the present appeal.

Findings of Court:
The transfer was upheld as it was not to a different grade, retained pay scale, and was consistent with the employment contract. No malafides were established in the transfer process.

Issues: Whether the transfer order was arbitrary, violated transfer policies, or was executed with malafide intentions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined managerial discretion in transfers is paramount; courts will not intervene without concrete evidence of malafides or policy violation. The transfer was within legal bounds and did not infringe on promotion potential.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. appeal against transfer order. (Para 1)
2. factual background of the appellant's employment. (Para 2)
3. arguments regarding cadre transfer. (Para 3 , 4)
4. single judge's decision on appellant's transfer. (Para 5 , 6)
5. affidavit supporting respondents’ stance. (Para 9)
6. judicial non-interference in administrative transfers. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
7. transfer was not based on malafides. (Para 15)
8. conclusion of the court's decision. (Para 17)

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J.

1. The instant appeal has been filed impugning the Judgment dated 27.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 14006/2019, wherein the learned Single Judge refused to interfere with the Transfer Order bearing Order No.319/2019 dated 06.12.2019 issued by National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. i.e. Respondent No.1 herein, transferring the Appellant from the post of Junior Chemist at NTPC, Faridabad, Haryana to the post of Junior Officer, Energy Efficiency Monitor Group (hereinafter referred as "EEMG") at the Regional Inspection Office, Chennai, Tamil Nadu (hereinafter referred as "RIO, Chennai").

2. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present LPA are as under:

i. The Appellant joined National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) as Assistant (DM Plant) Chemistry Section at NTPC-Anta Gas Power Project, Rajasthan on 15.07.1991 on the basis of an advertisement for a vacancy at the Anta Gas Power Project.

ii. On promotion, the post of the Appellant was re-designated as Junior Chemist and the Appellant continued on that post at Anta Gas Power Project from 15.07.1991 to 11.05.2012. The Appellant was transferred to Commercial Office of Respondent No.1 located at Jaipur, Rajasthan.

iii. It is stated that on 26.12.2014, the Appellant was once again transferred from Jaipur to Faridabad, Haryana w.e.f. 31.12.2014. iv. It is stated that vide Order dated 11.12.2019, the Appellant was transferred from NTPC, Faridabad to RIO, Chennai. The Appellant filed W.P.(C) 14006/2019 challenging his transfer order to RIO, Chennai on the following grounds:

"(i) The impugned transfer order is arbitrary in changing the petitioner's cadre without willingness, inasmuch as he is appointed in the Chemist Cadre and could not have been posted outside the Chemist Cadre.

(ii) The transfer order is in violation of Rule 2.6 of the Transfer Policy which states that workmen being promoted/laterally appointed from the grade of workman to supervisor may be transferred within the Region.

(iii) The impugned order is in violation of principles of Equal Opportunity Policy and Human Rights Policy of NTPC ignoring conditions of his physically challenged dependent parents who are living in Jaipur.

(iv) The impugned order is in violation of NTPC's delegation of power, inasmuch as a worker can be transferred within the region by Executive Director.

(v) There is no vacancy of his cadre in RIO, Chennai.

(vi) Before issuing the impugned order, there is no consent of the Second Head and the approval of the Head of the Department, i.e., General Manager, Faridabad. The petitioner is handling all the Chemistry related activities as there is no other workman in Chemistry Division at Faridabad Plant and there exists a requirement of Chemistry personnel at NTPC-Faridabad.

(vii) The petitioner has vide his email dated October 17, 2019 highlighted the irregularities and excess payment of Profit Related Payment ('PRP', for short) and acted as a whistle blower. Thus, the petitioner has been issued impugned transfer order against the Transfer Policy, Promotion Policy, Whistle Blower Policy with malafide intentions."

v. The learned Single Judge vide the judgment impugned herein had rejected all the grounds raised by the Appellant and upheld the transfer. The learned Single Judge held that the Appellant is bound to serve anywhere in India or abroad in any office/project unit or any industrial institute under the administrative control of Government of India as per the decision of the managemen