‘Employee’s transfer in transferable service is necessary incident of service career’: Delhi HC upholds transfer of a workman from Delhi to Chennai

Regarding the difficulties regarding education of petitioner’s children, the Court stated that the Labour Court has correctly recorded that children of the petitioner being aged 6 and 4 years, no academic damage would have been caused to their career had the petitioner complied with the transfer order.

Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenged the Labour Court award dated 24-04-2024, whereby it was held that the petitioner’s services were not terminated by the respondent under the garb of transfer order dated 18-01-2017, Girish Kathpalia, J., stated that the transfer of an employee in a transferable service was a necessary incident of the service career. Unless the transfer decision was vitiated by mala fides, there were no judicially manageable standards for scrutinizing all transfers.

The Court observed that the petitioner himself pleaded that efforts were done by the respondent to serve the transfer order, but he refused to accept the same. The Court stated that, that, would be a serious misconduct on the petitioner’s part. Admittedly, the petitioner did not comply with the said transfer order and did not report at Chennai office. Thus, the Court upheld the award passed by the Labour Court and dismissed the present petition.

Background

The petitioner, a workman appeared before the Labour Court and filed his Statement of Claim, pleading that he worked as Senior Foreman with the respondent management from 25-09-2007 till 21-01-2017 continuously. In December 2016, after demonetization policy announcement of the government, senior officers of the respondent asked the petitioner to give his identity card for getting some currency notes exchanged. Since, the petitioner refused to oblige, the officers got annoyed and told him that his services would be terminated in March 2017.

Subsequently, in January 2017, the petitioner was required to resign from his job, but he refused to do so. On 18-01-2017 the respondent passed an order transferring him from Delhi to Chennai, which but he refused to accept the same. On 21-01-2017 on reporting for duty, the petitioner found an endorsement in the attendance record to the effect that he had been transferred to Chennai. On 23-01-2017 the petitioner submitted a written request that his transfer be deferred till March 2017, so that his children’s studies do not suffer and that he should be given all facilities related to transfer as per the HR Manual of the respondent. However, the petitioner was stopped from continuing his duty at the Delhi site and was directed to immediately report at Chennai. Thus, the petitioner was not allowed to join duty and was never paid salary.

The respondent contended that there was no material on record to establish that services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondent and rather the material on record established that it was the petitioner who wilfully defied the transfer order by not joining the Chennai office.

Analysis, Law, and Decision

The Court stated that the scope and ambit of interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution while dealing with matters of transfers and postings of employees was extremely narrow and limited. Transfer of an employee being an incident of service, was purely in the domain of the employer based on administrative exigencies related to work profile, qualification and experience of the employee so that they could be best utilized.

The Court stated that it was trite that no employee had a legal or vested right to be posted at any specific place, except where the employee was able to establish a compassionate ground or proves mala fide action. The assessment of worth of an employee must be left to the bona fide decisions of the employer and their honest assessment had to be accepted as a part of service discipline. The Court stated that the transfer of an employee in a transferable service was a necessary incident of the service career. Unless the transfer decision was vitiated by mala fides, there were no judicially manageable standards for scrutinizing all transfers.

The Court observed that in the present case, it would be apposite to note that Clause 4 of the Appointment Letter issued to the petitioner clearly stipulated that his place of posting would be in the National Capital Region and that the management in its discretion could transfer him to any of the offices, divisions, departments, sections etc., across the country. Further, the petitioner himself pleaded that efforts were done by the respondent to serve the transfer order, but he refused to accept the same. The Court stated that, that, would be a serious misconduct on the petitioner’s part. Admittedly, the petitioner did not comply with the said transfer order and did not report at Chennai office.

The Court noted the petitioner’s allegation that his transfer from Delhi to Chennai was basically tool of terminating his services illegally, because he refused to oblige the respondent management in the conversion of currency after demonetization. But in his representation dated 23-01-2017, the petitioner did not make even a whisper of this allegation. The Labour Court rightly found the said allegation not believable.

The Court observed that in his representation dated 23-01-2017, the petitioner had mainly expressed his difficulties in complying with the transfer order, which was rejected by the respondent vide letter dated 27-01-2017, informing him of his eligibility for his travel facility to which he and his family were entitled. The Court stated that the petitioner ought to have reported at Chennai office forthwith and ought to have sought reimbursement of his expenses. Not only this, it was the petitioner’s duty to prepare an estimate of shifting expenses and to get the same approved from the authorized officer of the management, but he did not do so.

Further, regarding the difficulties regarding education of petitioner’s children, the Labour Court in the impugned award had correctly recorded that children of the petitioner being aged 6 and 4 years, no academic damage would have been caused to their career had the petitioner complied with the transfer order. The petitioner workman having consciously joined a job that was transferable across the country could not have refused to comply with the transfer order.

Thus, the Court upheld the award passed by the Labour Court and dismissed the present petition.

[Ravinder Mandal v. DLF Universal Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7699, decided on 06-11-2024]


Advocates who appeared in this case :

For the Petitioner: Pulkit Prakash and Arjun Mohan, Advocates

For the Respondent: Varun Kumar, Advocate.

Buy Constitution of India  HERE

Constitution of India

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *