Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
The Management of M/s. Uttam Roadways Pvt. Ltd., represented herein by its Manager C. Singaram - Appellant
Versus
P.B. Padmanabhan - Respondent
W.P.No. 28136 of 2004 & M.P.No. 3642 of 2005
Decided On : 22-07-2022
Transfer - Employment Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Schedule V - Model Standing Order 33(2)(b) - W.P.No.14291 of 1992 - 2004 (3) LLJ 749 - 1998 (4) LLN 804
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, an employee of the petitioner company, was transferred from Chennai to Bhivandi, Maharashtra. The respondent failed to join duty at Bhivandi, leading to a departmental enquiry and subsequent non-employment. The Labour Court awarded reinstatement with backwages, continuity of service, and other benefits in favor of the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the respondent's failure to join duty at Bhivandi did not justify the award of reinstatement and other benefits by the Labour Court. The Court held that the transfer order was not challenged by the respondent and there was no dismissal order issued by the petitioner. The Court also emphasized the limitations of interference with Labour Court awards under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the validity of the transfer order and the subsequent non-employment of the respondent. The Court also addressed the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and the limitations of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that non-employment can only be justified in exceptional cases and that the Labour Court's award must be perverse, arbitrary, discriminatory, or illegal to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, setting aside the award passed by the Labour Court. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in order dated 05.05.2004 passed by the learned Principal Labour Court, Chennai in I.D.No.392 of 2000 and quash the same and further to direct the respondent to join duty at Bhivandi Office of the petitioner company.)
This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records in order dated 05.05.2004 passed by the learned Principal Labour Court, Chennai in I.D.No.392 of 2000 and quash the same and further to direct the respondent to join duty at Bhivandi Office of the petitioner company.
2. The petitioner company is a transport company having branches all over the country. The employees are appointed by the petitioner company with the condition that their services are liable to be transferred to any of the branches of the petitioner company throughout the country.
3. The 2nd respondent was appointed as clerk by the petitioner on 01.06.1979 and at the time of appointment, the respondent agreed to be transferred to any of the petitioner-s branches in the country and the same is mentioned under Sub Clause 6 under the caption Duties and Responsibilities. In view of the experience of the respondent with the organisation for nearly twenty years, the respondent was promoted from clerk and transferred to Bhivandi, Maharashtra State as a godown incharge which is a senior and very responsible job by letter dated 27.07.1998 and it is only to utilise the experience and expertise of the respondent in transport field. The petitioner refused to join duty at Bhivandi eventhough he was relieved of his duties at Chennai with effect from 31.07.1998 and the petitioner has submitted his medical certificate and requested for sixty days time and the same was obtained only for the purpose of avoiding the transfer and not due to any real illness. The petitioner gave him time, even after that the respondent did not report for duty at Bhivandi. Therefore, a department enquiry was conducted against the respondent and the respondent did not attend and hence, ended against him. The respondent approached some union for compromise but also failed. The respondent filed I.D.No.392 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Labour Court, Chennai, claiming reinstatement with backwages, continuity of service and other attendance benefits. The respondent did not seek to set aside the order of transfer. The Labour Court passed an award dated 05.05.2004 holding that the non-employment of the petitioner is not justified and the petitioner is entitled to the relief of reinstatement in service with backwages, continuity of service and other attendance benefits. Aggrieved by this award the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent was transferred to Bhivandi branch at Maharashtra by the petitioner vide order dated 27.07.1998. The relieving order was also issued on 31.07.1998 to the respondent, relieving of Chennai office with immediate effect and to return to duty at Bhivandi office at Maharashtra. The petitioner also issued a letter dated 24.11.1998 in which the respondent was requested to obey the transfer order passed by the Director on 27.07.1998 and since the headquarters is at Mumbai, the Director alone has the power and authority to cancel the transfer order. Then not being satisfied with the explanation dated 24.03.1999 given by the respondent, the Management has decided to conduct an enquiry and the date for enquiry was fixed on 24.08.1999 for which the respondent vide letter dated 17.04.1999 submitted that there is a case pending with regard to the payment of salary to him and he has to attend the Court and was not able to attend the enquiry on 29.04.1999. After this issue is resolved by the Labour Officer, I request you to go to the issue of transfer.
5. The respondent, himself has stated in the petition filed bef
The Court highlighted the limitations of interference with Labour Court awards under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that such interference is only justified in exceptional case....
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 does not allow re-evaluation of factual findings by lower tribunals unless there is an error of law apparent on the record.
The management has the discretion to transfer employees without consent unless expressly prohibited in the employment contract, and non-compliance with transfer orders implies voluntary resignation.
The court affirmed that a transfer of service is a lawful exercise of management's discretion and does not constitute termination unless explicitly stated in the employment contract.
Judicial review of administrative transfers in employment requires proof of mala fide or jurisdictional error, reaffirming adherence to contractual terms unless misconduct is established.
Transfer orders are a condition of service; courts will not interfere without proof of mala fides or statutory violations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
