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.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J.

This common judgement shall decide the fate of aforementioned 17 writ petitions, since the facts and law involved in all the writ petitions are similar.

2. All the total 17 petitions have been filed by the petitioner(s)/workmen, challenging the award(s) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat (here-after referred to as the 'Labour Court'), while answering 17 references, vide order dated 14.05.2013 (as depicted in the above table).

After adjudicating the industrial dispute, the Labour Court answered the same against the workman(s), by holding that there is no termination caused by the respondent-Management.

3. Since the facts of the aforesaid writ petitions are identical, to avoid repetition and for the sake of brevity, the same are being referred in the subsequent paras of this judgement, from CWP No. 17142 of 2014, which has arisen out of Reference No. 266 of 2008, by treating the same as lead case.

4. The Government of Haryana referred the Industrial Dispute for its adjudication to the Labour Court by framing a question that:

" Whether the termination of services of workman Sh. Pappu Giri is legal and justified or not? If not so, to what relief he is entitled?

5. The pleaded case of the workman was that he was working as 'Clipper' with the respondent at wages of Rs. 3,640/- per month and he worked from 01.12.2004 to 14.03.2008. Though, the working hours of petitioner-workman were of eight hours, but Management used to take the services from him for ten hours. On raising the issue of over time payment, workman alongwith 28 workers were transferred, whereas, there was no such mentioning in the appointment letter regarding the transfer of workman. Thereafter, on not joining at the transferred place, petitioner-workman was not allowed to continue at the earlier working place i.e Panipat. Workman issue the demand notice on 07.04.2008, wherein he pleaded that despite completion of 240 working days in the preceding one year of his termination, not allowing him to join the services amounts to termination, in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act of 1947').

6. In the written statement filed by the respondent-Management, it was pleaded that as per the appointment letter, workman was appointed in semi skilled category and the terms and conditions of appointment letter refer to the applicability of duly Certified Standing Order of the company. It was also pleaded that the transfer is one of the conditions of service duly incorporated in Certified Standing Order and the workman is bound to obey any such transfer order. It was also pleaded that under Clause No. 37 (v) of the Certified Standing Order, Management is empowered to transfer the employee provided that wages, pay grade, continuity of service, condition of service are not adversely affected in any manner. It was further pleaded that even the salary to the tune of Rs. 500/- was enhanced in case the workman joined the services at transferred place and workman was also offered an advance amount of Rs. 1,000/- qua travelling/journey expenses. Workman did not join the duty at the place of his transfer, whereas the transfer order was for some administrative reasons. In no manner, the transfer order can be termed as an order of termination as projected by the workman. Neither there is any charge-sheet; nor termination order, so question of retrenchment does not arise.

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Labour Court, vide its order dated 28.04.2019, framed following four issues:

"1. Whether the termination of services of workman Shri. Pappu Giri is legal and valid. If not so, to what relief, the workman is entitled?OPW.

2. Whether present reference is not maintainable in view of preliminary/legal objections in the written statement?OPM

3. Whether the workman has failed to report for duty at the place of his transfer as alleged. If so, its effect? OPM.

4. Reli