Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Uday Shantikumar Dixit, joined Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (respondent no.1) on 23rd November 1981 as an Assistant Draughtsman and was later promoted. He worked at Powai and later at Mahape, Navi Mumbai. On 31st October 2012, he was transferred to Mysore, Karnataka. He challenged the transfer by filing Complaint (ULP) No.476 of 2012 before the Industrial Court, Mumbai, alleging that the transfer was illegal, mala fide, and in violation of the terms of employment. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint on 1st July 2016. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court. The High Court heard the matter and considered the submissions. The court held that transfer is an incidence of service and the employer has the right to transfer an employee unless the order is mala fide or contrary to the terms of contract. The Industrial Court had found no mala fides and the transfer was in accordance with the service conditions. The High Court upheld the Industrial Court's order and dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Transfer - Employer's Right - Transfer is an incidence of service and the employer has the right to transfer an employee unless the order is mala fide or contrary to the terms of contract - The Industrial Court found no mala fides and the transfer was in accordance with the service conditions - Held that the petition challenging the transfer was dismissed (Paras 1-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the transfer of the petitioner from Mahape, Navi Mumbai to Mysore, Karnataka was illegal, mala fide, or in violation of the terms of employment.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order dated 1st July 2016.
Law Points
- Transfer order is an incidence of service
- employer's right to transfer is absolute unless mala fide or contrary to contract
- Industrial Court's finding of no mala fides upheld
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (03) 44
WRIT PETITION NO.4363 OF 2017
Sanjay Singhvi, Rahul Kamerkar for petitioner; J.P. Cama, Sudhir Talsania, Sunil Tilokchandani, Ms.Subhasree Chatterjee for respondents
Larsen & Toubro Ltd. & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of Industrial Court dismissing complaint against transfer
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the transfer order and the Industrial Court's order dismissing his complaint
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that his transfer from Mahape, Navi Mumbai to Mysore, Karnataka was illegal and mala fide
Previous Decisions
Industrial Court, Mumbai dismissed Complaint (ULP) No.476 of 2012 on 1st July 2016
Issues
Whether the transfer order was mala fide and illegal
Whether the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the complaint
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the transfer was mala fide and in violation of service conditions
Respondents argued that transfer is an incidence of service and the order was valid
Ratio Decidendi
Transfer is an incidence of service and the employer has the right to transfer an employee unless the order is mala fide or contrary to the terms of contract. The Industrial Court found no mala fides and the transfer was in accordance with service conditions.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service.
By this petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 1st July, 2016 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No.476 of 2012 dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner challenging his transfer from Mahape, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra to Mysore, Karnataka with effect from 31st October, 2012.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No.476 of 2012 before Industrial Court, Mumbai challenging transfer. Industrial Court dismissed complaint on 1st July 2016. Petitioner then filed Writ Petition No.4363 of 2017 in Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
