The court emphasized the principles of judicial review of transfer cases, highlighting the need for statutory provisions and the absence of inherent right for transfer by the employer.

( 1 ) HEARD Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has challenged validity and correctness of the orders dated 19. 7. 2000 and 8. 8. 2000, by which he has been transferred from Allahabad to Delhi. The petitioner has claimed himself to be Trade Union worker and President of U. P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited, allahabad Unit of the Trade Union.

( 3 ) IT is submitted that the General Manager of the Nigam addressed a letter to Joint Managing director on 8. 8. 2000 stating therein that in view of order dated 30. 3. 1993 the petitioner cannot be transferred from Allahabad. The order dated 30. 3. 93, provides that the Government Servants, who are office bearers in recognized Trade Union such as the President or the Secretary, will not be transferred for a period of two years from the date of appointment on the post; and in case of necessity, approval may be taken by the authority higher by one rank than the transferring authority.

( 4 ) IT is submitted that according to the aforesaid Government Order dated 30. 3. 1993, the respondents cannot transfer the office bearers of the employees of the Union for at least two years.

( 5 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that transfer of the petitioner by order dated 19. 7. 2000 is illegal, unwarranted and suffers from voice of mala fide as local officers of the Nigam wanted to get rid-off him by transferring him from out of Allahabad against the provisions of G. O. dated 30. 3. 93. Reliance has been placed by the petitioner on Para 6 of the judgment of Apex Court in air 1966 SC 1283, Management of the Syndicate Bank Limited v. The Workmen, which is as under :-"

It is true that if an order of transfer is made mala fide or for some ulterior purpose like punishing an employee for his Trade Union activities the Industrial Tribunal should interfere and set-aside such an order of transfer because the mala fides exercise of power is not considered to be the legal exercise of the power given by law but the finding of mala fides should be reached by Industrial Tribunal only if there is sufficient and proper evidence in support of the findings. "

( 6 ) THE second point that has been raised by the petitioner before this Court that there is no source of power for transfer of the petitioner from Allahabad to Delhi as the activities of the nigam are confined to the State of U. P. and its registered office being situated in Lucknow and employees of corporation are not Government Servant, hence the respondents cannot transfer the employees from the State of U. P. to other States.

( 7 ) THE Counsel for the petitioner has also cited 1960 SC 650, Kundan Sugar Mills v. Zia Uddin and Ors. , in which it has been held that no employer had the inherent right to transfer an employee. Relying on Para 7 of the aforesaid case (supra) it is contended that power to transfer can be derived either from statute or from contract. The relevant observations are contained in paragraph 7 of the said judgment which is as under :

"none of these cases holds, as it is suggested by the learned Counsel for the appellant that every employer has the inherent right to transfer his employee to another place where he choses to start a business subsequent to the date of the employment. We therefore, hold that it was not a condition of service of employment of the respondents either express or implied that the employer has the right to transfer them. New concerned started by him subsequent to the date of their employment. "

( 8 ) IT is contended by the Counsel for the petitioner, that the rules made by the Rajkiya Nirman nigam are contained in Paragraph 1132 of its manual and a perusal of these rules would show that there is no power with the respondent Nigam by which it can transfer anyone of its employee from one place to another and in any case to a place which is outside the area of its operation.

( 9 ) THE Standing Counsel submits that the transfer is an incident of service and it does not re