PRISCY DSOZA Vs. INDAMER COMPANY PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent heard finally. The Petitioners, a female stenographer/clerk, a technician and a carpenter, the employees of the Respondent Company, are aggrieved by the interim order passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, at Mumbai, refusing to stay the transfer orders passed by the Respondent company transferring them from Mumbai to Delhi. The Petitioners filed a complaint under section 28 read with section 30 and Items 3, 5 and 9 of Schedule TV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 for a declaration that the said transfer orders amounted to an unfair labour practise and they sought affirmative orders to restrain to give effect to the impugned orders of transfer. They also filed application for interim orders but they failed to get such orders and therefore, they are before this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The hub of the petitioners complaint was that their appointment orders dated 5.10.1983 and 8.4.1980 did not stipulate any term or condition of transferability for the first two of them while the third petitioner was appointed in 1987 as a Carpenter without any appointment letter and therefore, there was total absence of power vested in the employer to transfer them from Mumbai to Delhi or to any other establishment outside Mumbai under the contract of service. Besides, when they were appointed at Mumbai the establishment at Delhi was not in existence, and therefore, according to them the transfer orders amounted to unfair labour practise under Items 3 and 9 of Schedule 4 of the Act.

(3.) The Respondent Company resisted the complaint and the Interim Relief Application mainly on the grounds that in fact the petitioners had agreed to go to Delhi by accepting the transfer orders but they had requested for some time to report at Delhi on account of their family difficulties. It was further contended that all others were issued appointment letters containing the transferability clause and therefore, even the Petitioners were liable to be transferred as an implied condition of service common for all the employees. According to the Respondent Company its business was at various centres outside the city of Mumbai and therefore, it has an implicit and inherent power to deploy its employees wherever they were needed according to the exigencies of the business.