GLAXO SMITHKLINE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD Vs. ABHAY RAJJAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a multinational company having its establishments all over the country. Its registered office is situated in Mumbai. It has also its manufacturing activities at Mumbai. It is a very large organization employing a large number of employees not only at Mumbai but at its various branches or units or undertakings all over India. It has a very large cadre of medical representatives, scattered all over the country. The entire net work all over the country is fully controlled by the petitioners head office at Mumbai. All the decisions are taken from the head office. It is the head office that decides the matters in respect of service conditions of the employees employed all over the country. From appointment orders to termination orders, every such order is passed by and originated in the Head office in Mumbai. Every order of transfer of the employees employed and posted all over the country is passed from the head office at Mumbai. The Head Office of the petitioner is the centralised point having computarised network to control the remotest activity of the company anywhere in India. There is no dispute over these facts.

(2.) THE dispute in the present petition arose when the petitioner passed an order of transfer of the respondent No. 1, who was posted at udaypur as medical representative ordering his transfer from Udaypur to Imphal, (Manipur) by an order dated 16th October 2002, which appears to have been handed over to the respondent No. 1 on 16th October 2002 at New Delhi in a meeting. It is alleged that he refused to accept the said order and, therefore, it was posted to him at his residence at Udaypur. There is no dispute that the petitioner had appointed the respondent No. 1 at Mumbai. There is no dispute that at the relevant time of his transfer he was working as a medical representative at udaypur in the region of Jodhpur, State of Rajasthan. There is no dispute that he was ordered to be transferred from Udaypur to Imphal. There is no dispute that the said order of transfer was passed by the petitioner from Mumbai and the same was communicated to him finally by post at his residence at Udaypur. There is also no dispute that the respondent No. 1 has not reported at the transferred place of work at Imphal. Instead, he along with the Federation of Medical Sales representatives' Association of India, Mumbai, filed a complaint of unfair labour practice before the industrial court, Maharashtra, Mumbai under the provisions of the M. R. T. U. and PULP Act, 1971. They invoked Item 4 (a) of schedule II and Item 3 of Schedule IV of the said Act in the complaint. It was pleaded that the petitioner as the employer company and the officers named in the said complaint have engaged in unfair labour practice by ordering transfer of the respondent No. 1 from Udaypur to Imphal, mala fide under the guise of following management policy. It was also averred that the respondent No. 1 was an active trade union worker of the federation and, therefore, he was penalised as he was organizing the union. The complainants in the said complaint sought declaration from the industrial court that the petitioner company had engaged in unfair labour practice and that it should be ordered to desist from engaging in such unfair labour practice. Along with the complaint an application for interim orders was filed for stay of the transfer order. The learned member of the industrial court, after hearing the parties, in his exhaustive order of 35 pages passed on 24-1-2002 granted interim relief and stayed the transfer order dated 16th October 2001.

(3.) THE petitioner company was aggrieved by the said order and approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the said order of the industrial court. On 13-3-2002 I had granted Rule and expedited the complaint observing that the crucial issue of jurisdiction of the Industrial Court required to be considered and therefore, in my discretion, i had stayed the impugned order passed by the industrial court. As a result of the said order, the order of transfer was revived. The respondent No. 1, employee was aggrieved by the said order of this court and, therefore, he approached the appeal court challenging the order passed by this court on 13-3-2002. The appeal court, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by me at the time of admission of this petition. The appeal court, however, requested this court to expedite hearing of the petition and to dispose of the same preferably before 31st July 2002. In the aforesaid circumstances, in deference to the request made by the appeal court, I, as a firm believer of judicial discipline and respect fixed the petition for hearing and final disposal by giving top priority, over the head of all other pending old matters, to which the attention of the Appeal court was perhaps not drawn. Since a grievance was made by some advocates and the parties as to how this Writ Petition of 2002 gets priority over the other very old matters, I have made my position clear by setting out the factual position. At the moment as a result of the order of the Appeal court, the order of the Industrial court staying the order of the transfer is restored.