O P SOOD Vs. H M T LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is unsuccessful plaintiffs regular second appeal.

(2.) PLAINTIFF , a Sales Assistant with the defendant, challenged the legality of his transfer order dated 7. 2. 1986 from Chandigarh to Panaji (Goa) with a further prayer that the defendant be restrained from transferring him from Chandigarh to any other place.

(3.) COURT framed issues as arose from the pleadings of the parties and permitted them to lead evidence. Trial Court, however, found no substance in the claim set up by the plaintiff and so dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 28. 5. 1990.