Court held Transfer Of Workman, without Valid Reason, Unfair: Punjab & Haryana High Court
In this case, workman or petitioners have filed seventeen petitions contesting the decisions made by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat. These awards, which were given out on May 14, 2013, addressed seventeen references pertaining to employee terminations. The Labour Court found against the workers, finding that the management had not terminated any employees.
In the case of Pappu Giri and Ors vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cumLabour Court, Panipat, and another Case Number: CWP17142-2014(O&M) and Connected Matters, the Punjab and Haryana High Court bench of Justice Sanjay Vashisth ruled that there was no material in the form of an affidavit.
When there is a need to move a worker from one location to another, the choice made by management cannot be described as fair and without doubt.
Court Case presented by:
- Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate.
- Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate.
Brief Facts of Court judgement:
In this case, workman or petitioners have filed seventeen petitions contesting the decisions made by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat. These awards, which were given out on May 14, 2013, addressed seventeen references pertaining to employee terminations. The Labour Court found against the workers, finding that the management had not terminated any employees.
The question of whether the worker’s termination was lawful and justifiable, as well as what remedy, if any, he was entitled to, was raised by the Government of Haryana when it referred the industrial dispute to the Labour Court. In the laborer’s case, he was paid Rs. 3,640 a month for his work as a “Clipper” for the Management between December 1, 2004, and March 14, 2008.He was allegedly forced to work ten hours a day without receiving overtime compensation by the management, despite the usual eight-hour workweek. Despite the fact that there was no transfer clause stated in the appointment letter, he and 28 other people were transferred when he brought up the problem. He could not stay on at Panipat after turning down the transfer. On April 7, 2008, he sent out a demand letter, alleging that he had been fired for breaking Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 by not being accepted at his original place of employment.
The management contended that the workman was appointed under conditions specified by the Certified Standing Order, which had a transfer clause, in a semi-skilled category. The argument posited that the transfer was legal and that the worker’s pay, grade, and working conditions remained unchanged. The offer included Rs. 1,000 for travel expenses in addition to an extra Rs. 500 for accepting the transfer. The worker was not let go; rather, he was merely noncompliant with the transfer order, which did not amount to retrenchment because he refused the transfer for administrative reasons.
The worker acknowledged during the trial that he had no documentation of completing 10 hours of work and that he had not received a termination order. Instead, he maintained that the transfer was maliceful and constituted an unlawful termination on March 14, 2008. Because there was simply a transfer order, which the worker disregarded, and no termination order, the Labour Court was unable to find any proof of persecution or termination. As a result, it determined that the worker was not fired by the respondent and was not present at his new posting place. The laborer, feeling vindictive, went to the Punjab and Haryana High Court (the “High Court”).
Unless otherwise specified in the contract, the management contended that the transfer instructions were standard service occurrences, and failure to comply with them might result in termination. The laborers contended that the transfer order was illegal and therefore invalid, since the Certified Standing Order only permitted transfers to already-existing establishments, not to new ones.
Observations by the High Court:
The High Court determined that there was no express or implied provision in the Certified Standing Order for the transfer of workers in the event that a new unit or factory was established. The Panipat Management was not able to produce any proof that a decision had been reached, such as a resolution stating that the move to Dadra and Nagar Haveli was necessary for a specific reason.
Moreover, there was no proof that the Panipat Management had been notified of any request or requisition regarding the need to transfer the workers’ services by authorities or a subordinate committee. The High Court was unable to view the Management’s decision as reasonable and unquestionable in the absence of affidavits or other evidence supporting the necessity of such transfers. Because the required clauses for transfer to a new unit or factory were absent in both explicit and implied terms, the High Court determined that the management’s arguments, which were based on the Certified Standing Order or the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, were inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
As a result, the High Court granted all seventeen writ petitions brought by the workmen. As a result, management was advised to allow the workers to continue working at their original location. Alternatively, the High Court allowed the management to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- to each of the workmen affected by the shift from Panipat to Dadra and Nagar Haveli, to be paid within three months of the order’s date, August 14, 2024.
Stay tuned, to PropleManager.co.in for further updates on the evolving workplace paradigm.
Value our content… contribute towards our growth. Even a small contribution per month would be of great help to us. Since our establishment, we have been serving the industry through daily news and updates.
Our content is free for all, and we plan to keep it that way
Support the People Manager. Pay Here
- Withdraw PF from ATMs Starting 2025: Labour Ministry - December 12, 2024
- Oral Complaints Cannot Replace Written Complaints Under PoSH Act: Kerala High Court - December 12, 2024
- Bengaluru Woman Rejects Job Offer Due to CEO’s Behavior During Interview - December 10, 2024
