Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sulzer Pumps India Private Limited, challenged the judgment of the Industrial Court, Thane, which declared that the employer had engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 3 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, by transferring respondent No.1, Jayendra Arun Jog, from Mumbai to Chennai. The respondent had been employed with the petitioner since 1992 and was promoted to Supervisor in 2011. On 30th October 2020, he was transferred to Chennai, which he challenged as malafide and victimization due to his union activities. The Industrial Court set aside the transfer order. The High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227, examined whether the Industrial Court's findings were perverse or without evidence. The court noted that the employee had served for 28 years in Mumbai and had a clean record. The transfer was sudden and without prior consultation. The employer claimed it was due to reorganization, but failed to produce any evidence of such reorganization or that the employee's role was redundant. The timing of the transfer, shortly after the employee became active in the union, indicated victimization. The High Court held that the Industrial Court's conclusion that the transfer was an unfair labour practice was based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not warrant interference. The petition was dismissed, and the transfer order remained set aside.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Transfer - Items 3 and 9 of Schedule IV, Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The employer transferred the employee from Mumbai to Chennai after 28 years of service. The Industrial Court held the transfer was malafide and an unfair labour practice. The High Court upheld the finding, noting that the employer failed to justify the transfer and the timing suggested victimization due to the employee's union activities. (Paras 2, 3, 10-15) B) Industrial Law - Transfer - Malafides - Burden of Proof - Items 3 and 9 of Schedule IV, MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - Once the employee establishes circumstances indicating malafides, the burden shifts to the employer to prove the transfer was for legitimate reasons. The employer's failure to produce evidence of administrative exigency or consultation with the employee led to the inference of unfair labour practice. (Paras 12-15) C) Industrial Law - Jurisdiction - Industrial Court - Transfer Orders - Section 28, MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court has jurisdiction to examine transfer orders if they are alleged to be an unfair labour practice. The court can set aside a transfer if it is found to be malafide or in violation of the Act. (Paras 2, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the transfer of the employee from Mumbai to Chennai was an unfair labour practice under Items 3 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, and whether the Industrial Court's order setting aside the transfer was legally sustainable.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's judgment and order dated 7th December 2022, which declared the transfer as an unfair labour practice and set aside the transfer order.
Law Points
- Transfer order must be based on legitimate administrative reasons
- not malafide or victimization
- burden on employer to justify transfer when challenged as unfair labour practice
- Industrial Court has jurisdiction to examine transfer orders under MRTU & PULP Act.
