K.HANUMANTHA RAO Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is challenging the award passed in ID.No.102 of 2006, dtd. 1/7/2011 and also seeks a consequential direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to reinstate the petitioner into service together with back wages and all consequential benefits.

(2.) The petitioner joined the 3rd respondent as a Trainee Professional Service Representative on 22/2/1983, and his services were confirmed on 17/4/1984. He was promoted to the post of Field Sales Officer on 8/7/1985. The petitioner was transferred to Khammam and was transferred to Imphal vide order dtd. 1/7/2002

(3.) The petitioner was reluctant to join at Imphal. He was informed that it was only for a short period and that he would be retransferred to Guntur. The petitioner was subsequently transferred to Tirupati vide order dtd. 27/4/2004. The petitioner was again transferred to Mumbai vide order dtd. 1/4/2005.