Violation of the Industrial Disputes Act in the termination of an employee without proper enquiry and using a transfer order as a pretext for dismissal.

ORDER

Writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court dated 05.11.2015. 2. The respondent was deputed by one of the petitioner's consultants in M/s.Foi Management Consultants Ltd., and was appointed as a Customer Support Executive in the service of the petitioner company vide appointment letter dated 22.04.2006 and joined the service with effect from 01.06.2006. While so, the petitioner on 01.06.2010 issued a warning letter to the respondent for his repeated failure to undertake telecalling and practice of forwarding official emails and communication to the external email ids. Thereafter the petitioner due to work exigency in Trichy Branch issued a transfer order dated 02.09.2010 transferring the respondent from Nagercoil to Trichy Branch. On the very next day of issuance of transfer order the respondent objected to the same. Thereafter the petitioner terminated the services of the respondent by giving a notice pay of 3 months basic salary. Aggrieved over the termination the respondent raised the industrial dispute. The Labour Court found that the termination was illegal and hence vide order dated 05.11.2015 passed an Award directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service with 50% backwages and other attendant benefits and in default of payment of backwages within time, it was ordered that interest at 7.5% per annum would be payable. Aggrieved by the Award of the Labour Court the petitioner has filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent was an employee of the petitioner company and was bound by the terms and conditions of his employment. The refusal to accept the transfer order dated 12.10.2010 without valid reasons amounted to blatant violation of the rules of the petitioner company. The learned counsel submitted that the non acceptance of the transfer order was a good ground for termination of employment. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent was terminated from service in compliance with the terms and conditions of the employment by giving him notice pay of 3 months basis salary amounting to Rs.13,719/- in lieu of notice period. The learned counsel therefore submitted that Award of the Labour Court was unsustainable and deserves to be setaside.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the Labour Court had given cogent and valid reasons for interfering with the termination order. The Labour Court had considered the evidence on record in proper perspective and returned the finding that there was violation of Section 25(F) of the I.D. Act. In the absence of perversity in the findings the same could not be interfered with by this Court. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the Award passed by the Labour Court should be confirmed.

5. I have heard both the learned counsels and I have perused the entire materials placed on record.

6. It is seen that the respondent joined the services of the petitioner as customer support executive and was confirmed on 01.12.2006 vide Ex.W4. The respondent developed strained relation with the petitioner as the petitioner insisted the respondent to do telecalling work by fixing a target of 20 calls per day. The petitioner refused to do the work of telecalling, as according to him it was not a part of his job. There were other complaints by the respondent against the petitioner which are not dealt with in detail here. Suffice it to state that the strained relations culminated in the transfer order, transferring the respondent from Nagercoil to Trichy TLC Offsite effective from 01.09.2010 as per Ex.W8. The respondent expressed his unwillingness to accept the transfer and therefore under Ex.W12 dated 12.10.2010, the respondent services were terminated. Challenging the said termination order the respondent raised dispute.

7. The Labour Court on the basis of the materials placed on record