FARLY VAZ Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Goa dated 31st Jan., 2000, whereby it rejected the reference and held that the action of the Management of the respondent in transferring the workman from Arlem, Margao to Mapusa with effect from 2.4.1990 was legal and justified.

(2.) It is undisputed that the petitioner was employed by Order dated 22.2.1973 by the respondent as Stenographer cum Receptionist and she had been working as such in the said post at Margao. By letter dated 26.3.1990, she was transferred with effect from 2.4.1990 to the respondent's establishment at the address "Kochkar Building, Opposite Janki Shankar Hotel, Mapusa, Goa". By this transfer letter, it was clarified that the petitioner would carry out the work related to the respondent's proposed establishment at 41/42, Mapusa Industrial Estate, Mapusa and after the said establishment becomes operational, she would be posted there.

(3.) It is further undisputed that immediately on receipt of this letter, the petitioner proceeded on leave on 27th and 28th March, 1990. Thereafter, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 28.3.1990 to the respondent stating therein that since she refused on 28.2.90 to sign a blank paper purported to be a wage settlement, she was being harassed and victimised by transferring her. The said letter of the petitioner was replied to by the respondent by reply dated 4.4.1990, wherein it was clarified that her services were transferred to the aforesaid establishment at Kochakar Building and that she was required to do the work relating to the respondent's establishment being set up at 41/42, Mapusa Industrial Estate. It was further clarified that it is only after the new establishment becomes operational, she would be posted there. It was also mentioned in its reply that the transfer was effected taking into account exigencies of business and other factors. In the same reply, the petitioner's contention raised in her letter dated 28.3.90 that she was being victimised or harassed as she refused to sign the wage settlement, was answered and it was mentioned therein that majority of the employees had voluntarily accepted the wage settlement on 7.3.90, draft of which had been typed by herself and the terms of the wage settlement had been discussed/negotiated with the employees to which the petitioner was a party.