GROUP PHARMACEUTICALS LTD Vs. BLOSSOM GODINHO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE, returnable forthwith. Mr. R. J. Kochar waives service for Respondent No. 1. As regards Respondent No. 2 service is dispensed with being formal party. By consent writ Petition is heard finally at this stage.

(2.) THE Petitioner No. 1 - M/s. Group Pharmaceuticals Ltd. , is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act. 1956, hereinafter referred to as "the Company". The petitioner No. 1 has its registered office at S. V. Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai. The 2nd Petitioner R. S. Attavar, is the Managing Director of the company. On October 6, 1980 the 1st Respondent - Blossom Godinho, hereinafter referred to as "the employee", made an application for employment as Receptionist-cum-Typist to the company and pursuant to the said application and interview, the employee was appointed as Receptionist-cum-Typist in the company on the terms and conditions mentioned therein, more particularly the appointment was to be effective from October 16, 1980 and she was to be on probation for 6 months from the date of her appointment. It was made clear in the appointment order that her appointment shall be subject to such Rules and Regulations made by the company as were in force at the time of appointment or may be introduced by amendment or extended from time to time. During the month of May. 1995 the Board of Directors of the employer company unanimously resolved to shift the entire Marketing Division to Bangalore in order to give major thrust to the promotions activities of the employer company's products in Southern States and to embark on expansion of field operations in the Southern States. A letter dated May 15, 1995 was issued by the employer company to the employee advising her to report for duty at Bangalore at the address given in the said letter since the Marketing Division was shifted from Mumbai to Bangalore. The employee was advised to report for duty at Bangalore within 15 days from the receipt of the said letter.

(3.) THE employee challenged the action of the employer Company by filing the complaint for unfair labour practice on the part of the employer Company under items 3, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short MRTU and PULP Act ). It was inter alia averred by the employee in the complaint that after joining her duty as Receptionist-cum-Typist pursuant to the appointment letter dated October 23, 1980, she came to be promoted to various posts by the employer Company and at the time of filing of the complaint she was working as Secretary to General Manager (Sales ). It was also averred that in the year 1990 Mr. R. S. Attavar, the 2nd Petitioner herein called her on Saturday for work and at that time she was the only person in the office. Mr. Attavar misbehaved with her and attempted to molest her. The employee lost temper and told Attavar that if he acted any further, she would inform the entire office and also his family. During the said incident, according to the employee, Mr. Attavar, who is presently Managing Director, got very much annoyed and systematically sought to take revenge against her and under the garb of shifting of the Marketing Division, sought to transfer the employee malafide and in colourable exercise of his power to Bangalore. The employee alleged that after the said incident the employees who were junior to her were promoted and given higher posts by the employer company and its Managing Director, but though she was senior she was made junior to those persons who were promoted subsequently and the entire exercise was intended to humiliate and victimize her. It is further the case of the employee that the transfer was bad in law being in violation of the terms of contract and, therefore, the employer company has also indulged in unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act. The transfer order was sought to be challenged on the ground that such order amounted to change of the service conditions without notice and, therefore, in the absence of any notice under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, it was bad in law.