Termination of employment disguised as a transfer without conducting a domestic inquiry or proving willful abandonment is illegal. The burden of proof lies with the employer to demonstrate the necessity of transfer and to follow due process, failing which, reinstatement with back wages is appropriate.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

1. By way of the present petitions, the petitioners/workwomen have assailed the award dated 23.07.2018, whereby the Labour Court dismissed their claims/references and denied them the reliefs sought against the common respondent/management.

2. Briefly stated, as per their respective claim applications, the workwomen, namely Seema and Pushpa Pal, had been working with the management as permanent skilled workers in ‘Hand Embroidery’ for several years. The petitioner/Seema had joined service in July 2003 whereas the petitioner/Pushpa Pal had joined service on 01.01.1997. The last drawn wages of both the workwomen were stated to be Rs.5,278/- per month. Both the workwomen averred that during the tenure of their service, they had performed their duties diligently and no complaint was ever made against either of them by the management. It was further averred that the management had failed to extend statutory and legal facilities to them, such as appointment letters, identity cards, pay slips, minimum wages, leave benefits, overtime wages, attendance cards, and other service benefits. According to the workwomen, upon repeatedly demanding such legal facilities, the management illegally terminated their services without paying their earned wages and other dues, and without complying with the mandatory provisions of the law. Aggrieved thereby, the workwomen raised industrial disputes seeking reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages and consequential benefits; however, upon failure of conciliation proceedings, the disputes were referred to the Labour Court for adjudication and, as noted above, the same came to be dismissed by the Labour Court.

3. Ms. Kochar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/workwomen, while assailing the impugned award, contends that the workwomen had been working with the management for several years as skilled workers without any complaints, but when they demanded legal facilities and statutory benefits, the management, in the garb of transfer, illegally terminated their services without issuing any notice, chargesheet or conducting any inquiry. She argues that the transfer of services shown by the management is only a cover to justify the illegal termination of the petitioners. It is contended that no proof regarding the service of the concerned transfer letters upon the workwomen has been placed on record and even the management witness admitted the same during cross-examination. It is further contended that the documents relied upon by the management, including the appointment letters, were fraudulently prepared using blank papers previously signed by the workwomen.

4. Per contra, Mr. Chawla, learned counsel appearing for the management in both petitions, defends the impugned award and submits that the petitioner workwomen were never terminated from service and their services were only transferred from the Okhla Unit of the management to the Gurgaon Unit, duly in compliance of the terms stipulated in the appointment letters and the Certified Standing Orders of the management. It is further submitted that the management repeatedly called upon the petitioner workwomen to report for duty at the new workplace through various letters and communications; however, the workwomen deliberately did not join their duties. He also submits that the ap