Employer have no implied right to transfer employee from one office of management to another

Learned counsel for the petitioner-management had also argued that right to transfer an employee is implicit in every contract of service and therefore, the respondent-workman could still be transferred from one office of the petitioner-management to another. This argument also cannot be accepted in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in “Kundan Sugar Mills Vs Ziyauddin and others”, AIR 1960 SC 650 wherein similar contention raised on behalf of the employer was rejected by the Supreme Court by observing in para no. 4 of the judgment that “The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the right to transfer is implicit in very contract of service is too wide the mark”. This decision was followed by the Bombay High Court in its judgment in “Priscy D’Souza & Ors. Vs. Indamer Company (Pvt.) Ltd. & Ors.”, 2003 LLR 142.
The judgments reported as AIR 1995 SC 1056, AIR 1973 SC 1227, 1994 SCC (L&S) 230, 1989 SCC (L&S) 393, & 1976 LAB I.C. 4 and cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner-management are of no help to the petitioner-management as in none of those decisions the question regarding the right of an employer to transfer an industrial workman from one place to another in the absence of an express agreement providing for transfer of the workman was involved, as was the question involved in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kundan Sugar Mills (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent-workman.

HIGH COURT OF DELHI

W.P. (C) 6621/2005

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.