Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.19 seconds)
Rajni Manchanda vs P.O. Labour Court ???I And Anr. on 4 September, 2013 cites

Mulchandani Electrical And Radio ... vs The Workmen on 24 January, 1975

9. Learned counsel has vehemently contended that at the time of joining by the petitioner Bangalore office was not in existence even though there was a clause regarding transfer in the contract of service. This clause was not applicable to the petitioner since Bangalore office was not in existence and was opened later. It is further contended that transfer of the petitioner was punitive and was not sustainable. Transfer cannot be made by way of WP(C) 6187-99 Page 6 of 10 punishment and if it is with the intent to victimize the workman, same would be illegal. It is further contended that respondent no. 2 was determined to dismiss the petitioner since she had objected to the style and functioning of Manager namely, Ms. Manjula Berry who even issued memos to petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner was transferred to Bangalore. Thus, her transfer was punitive. Reliance has been placed on National Radio Corporation vs. Their Workmen 1963 1LLJ 282, Kundan Sugar Mills vs. Ziya Uddin and Others 1960 1 LLJ 266 and New India Flour Mills (supra). I do not find any force in the above contentions of the learned counsel. Judgments relied upon by the learned counsel are in the context of different facts. It is not the case that petitioner was transferred to some other establishment, acquired by the respondent no. 2 subsequent to her joining. It is also not the case that respondent no. 2 was having its office only at Delhi at the time of petitioner's joining the respondent no.2. It is also not a case that petitioner was transferred to some other establishment. Terms of contract of service envisaged transfer anywhere in the country under Clause (iv), which was duly accepted by the petitioner. Thus, it cannot be said that respondent no. 2 could not have transferred to the other branches of respondent no.2. As regards contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that enquiry was WP(C) 6187-99 Page 7 of 10 only a farce, also cannot be accepted. Admittedly, petitioner did not join the duties at Bangalore on 20th December, 1984, inasmuch as had been resisting to go to Bangalore and had sent communications to this effect. It is not the case that petitioner was suspended prior to the last date of joining. If that is so, then it cannot be said that suspension of the petitioner on the last date of her joining at Bangalore indicated that respondent no. 2 was determined to dismiss the petitioner. If it was so, the petitioner could have been dismissed on 20th December, 1984 itself. Facts narrated hereinabove indicate that respondent no. 2 had acted in a fair manner and conducted the departmental enquiry wherein petitioner participated, inasmuch as petitioner had failed to show before the Industrial Adjudicator that there was any violation of principles of natural justice. During the proceedings before the Industrial Adjudicator main contention of the petitioner was that her transfer was by way of victimization and punitive, thus, was not sustainable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 50 - A C Gupta - Full Document
1