The main legal point established in the judgment is that transfer orders must be clear and reasonable, and evidence of victimization and undue haste in employee discharge can lead to reinstatement with backwages and continuity of service.

The prayer in this writ petition is to quash the award made in I.D.No.431 of 1994 dated 1. 2001 on the file of the Labour Court, Vellore.

2. The case of the petitioner-management as could be seen from the affidavit in support of the writ petition are as follows:

(a) The second respondent was employed as Supervisor in the petitioner Soap Factory at Ranipet. During April, 1999, the management placed orders with the manufacturers at Mumbai for supply of certain machineries in connection with the expansion of the manufacturing activities at Ranipet. According to the petitioner, the second respondent was involved in various manufacturing activities in the factory and in order to ensure proper execution of the work order given to the manufacturer at Mumbai, and also to survey and inspect the machineries, the management decided to send competent technicians to Mumbai for certain period.

(b) The second respondent and two others were found fit for the above job and on 8. 1994 they were issued with orders deputing them to Mumbai. The second respondent was required to report before the petitioners Mumbai office Manager on or before 8. 1994.

(c) It is claimed in the affidavit that the second respondent refused to accept the said order and sent a letter on 8. 1994 by stating that he was working in the factory at Ranipet for the past seven years and as per the Model Standing Orders, there was no provision to transfer employees like him, who are paid consolidated salary and it is not possible for him to maintain his family at Ranipet, while staying at Mumbai and therefore he requested to post him at Rnipet itself.

(d) The management sent a reply stating that as per clause 6 of the order of appointment, the second respondent is liable for transfer anywhere in India and the second respondent was sent for the purpose of inspection and survey the equipments and directed the second respondent to report at Mumbai.

(e) Again, the second respondent sent a letter on 18. 1994 and objected the said transfer and requested to permit him to work at Ranipet. On 20.8.1994, the management once again directed the second respondent to report at Mumbai, failing which he would be liable for disciplinary action.

(f) The second respondent having not reported for duty at Mumbai, a show cause notice was issued on 28. 1994, calling upon the second respondent as to why he should not be dismissed from service for his refusal to attend to work at Mumbai. The second respondent sent a reply on 28. 1994 and reiterated his stand. As the second respondent refused to obey the transfer order, on 30.8.1994 he was discharged from service. The second respondent raised I.D.No.431 of 1994 before the first respondent by contending that he was victimised for his Trade Union activities and prayed for reinstatement with backwages and continuity of service. The management filed counter statement and denied the same.

3. Before the Labour Court, the second respondent examined himself as a witness and marked 26 exhibits on his side. On behalf of the management, the then Works Manager was examined as MW-1 and Exs.M-1 to M-53 were marked. The Labour Court, by award dated 1. 2001, directed the petitioner management to reinstate the second respondent with backwages and continuity of service with cost of Rs.1, 000/-.

4. The said award passed by the first respondent-Labour Court is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the appointment order given to the second respondent empowers the management to transfer him and the second respondent having failed to obey the transfer order, he was discharged from service. It is also contended in the affidavit that transfer being an incidence of service and the management having discharged the second respondent for disobedience of the transfer order, the Labour Court was not justified in setting aside the said order and ordering reinstatement with all benefits.

5. The learned counsel for the management during the course of the argument