The High Court held that the transfer of the appellant 2 was as per the terms and companyditions of employment.
The employee has alleged that the basis of apprehended action against the employees mentioned by him was that they have filed affidavits in his favour against unfair labour practices, high handed actions, atrocities etc.
2 from Sagar Madhya Pradesh to Mumbai State of Maharashtra .
It was also held that the employee had failed to challenge the termination order dated 15th April, 2005.
The allegation of the employee is that he had reasonable and bona fide apprehension that the employer, after filing of the present companyplaint, was going to take adverse actions such as mala fide transfers, suspension, disciplinary actions, summary terminations etc.
One of the companyditions in the letter of appointment was that the employer shall be entitled, at any time during the companyrse of employment, to transfer the employee to any of its affiliates, subsidiaries or sister companypanies.
He was paid wages till February, 2005.
The employee had protested against the same and it is on account of raising his voice against the said atrocities and acts of force, the employee was threatened that he would be transferred and his other companyleagues would also be dealt with severely by the employer.
2 from Sagar Madhya Pradesh to Mumbai State of Maharashtra because there are sufficient number of Medical Representatives working in Mumbai.
The employee was transferred to Mumbai on 21st March, 2005 with immediate effect.
The employee along with National Federation of Sales Representatives Union3 filed a companyplaint on 30 th April, 2005 before the Industrial Court, Maharashtra established under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 19714.
The stand of the employer was that the transfer was as per companytract of employment signed between the parties and that there is numbermala fide in the order of transfer.
companymitted by employer companypany and its employer on 15th March, 2005 during the Launching Conference at Ahmedabad.
It was also asserted that the employee had failed to report for duties at the transferred place, therefore, companymunications dated 1st April, 2005 and 8th April, 2005 were addressed to him to resume duties but the employee companytinued his defiant attitude of number reporting for work at the transferred place and subsequently, his services were terminated on 15th April, 2005.
Thereafter, he was promoted to Field Sales Officer Grade FM One.
against N.P. Mishra, Rajendra 3 for short, Union 4 for short, Act Khandelwal, Sandeep Mitra, Manoj Bhatt, Rajaram V. Baliga and Rajkumar Jasnani.
He was invited for a Launching Conference but two managers of the employer companypany Deepak Sethi, Sales Manager and Sanjay Anand, Regional Manager drove Mr. Ashish Khare out of the hotel at night time.
Further, it was pleaded that the resignation of Mr. Ashish Khare was voluntary which was accepted and he was relieved on 6th January, 2005.
The Industrial Court examined four issues.
Thus, there is numberbusiness exigency or administrative reason for transferring the Complainant No.
The service of the employee was terminated on 15th April, 2005.
1 i.e. the Union.
The second issue being whether the termination order dated 15 th April, 2005 was real, existent and bona fide.
However, in respect of termination alleged by the employer, the employee stated to the following effect I say that the companypany had addressed me an E Mail dated 14th April, 2005, inter alia asking me to report for work at Mumbai.
The employee did number join duty at Mumbai therefore, reminders were sent by the employer on 1st April, 2005 and 8th April, 2005.
Brief facts leading to the present appeal are that the employee was appointed on 6th June, 1985 as a Professional Service Representative and was posted at Sagar, Madhya Pradesh.
In the written statement filed by the employer, the status of the employee as a workman was denied as he was alleged to be working in supervisory, managerial or administrative capacity and he was discharging his duties as Territory Manager.
Relevant assertion in the companyplaint reads as under That the impugned transfer order does number mention any business exigency and or administrative reason s and, in fact, there does number exist any business exigency and or administrative reason s for suddenly transferring the Complainant No.
Soon after the Conference was over, the employee was transferred on 21st March, 2005.
The employee also alleged that one Mr. Ashish Khare, an active member of the Union was forced to resign from the employment of the employer companypany in January, 2005 but the same was number accepted.
The employee alleged that he was the President of Sagar Unit of Madhya Pradesh Medical Representatives Association which is affiliated to companyplainant No.
Such transfer order was received on 4th April, 2005.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on 21 st January, 2014 whereby the writ petition filed by M s. Wockhardt Ltd. 1 was allowed and the order passed by the Industrial Court on 6 th August, 2012 was set aside.
It was held that the employer had to decide who should work at particular place and who was to be transferred to another place in the interest of 1 for short, employer 2 for short, employee establishment.
