JUDGMENT Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 9.11.2004 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-III Karkardoom, New Delhi.
2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was working as a Telephone-Operator-cum-Clerk with the respondent. She was transferred from Delhi to Chandigarh office of the respondent on 27.2.1989. She challenged her transfer and raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the tribunal in the following terms:
Whether the transfer of Smt. Saroj Arora New Delhi to Chandigarh is illegal and/or malafide and if so to what relief is she entitled and what directions are necessary in this regard
3. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the transfer of petitioner was not actuated by malafide, it was made on account of exigencies of service and the transfer was part of service condition. Even otherwise there was an agreement between Union of Employees and management that transfer shall not be opposed.
4. The petitioner has challenged the order of Tribunal inter alia on the grounds that the transfer order was passed by one Mr. A.P.Singh, who was not competent to do so, no guidelines for transfer of an employee had been formulated by the management. There was no office of the respondent company functioning at Chandigarh when she was transferred there and the transfer was malafide and was made in order to harass the petitioner because the petitioner was actively taking part in union activities and was secretary of the union. There was no exigency of work for which her transfer was necessary to be made at Chandigarh. There was no settlement arrived at between the union and the management that union shall not oppose transfers, as held by the Tribunal. No reasons were given as to why petitioner was picked up for transfer. The transfer was an act of victimization of petitioner at the hands of management.
5. The petitioner was confirmed at the post of Telephone-Operator-cum -Clerk vide order dated 1.7.1980, she was placed in regular scale and the terms and conditions were mentioned in her appointment letter. Para 6 of the letter reads as under:
You may be posted to work in any of our Divisions, Departments or offices managed by this company. At present you will continue to work in this Branch (CMD, New Delhi) as Telephone Operator-cum-Clerk in Grade-X
6. It is obvious from the terms and conditions of service that service of petitioner was transferable and she could be posted at any other division/department/office of the respondent company. Her initial posting was given at Delhi Branch. Where an employee is given appointment letter with clear conditions that his services are transferable, he cannot raise a grievance against his transfer or his place of posting, transfer being an incident of his service. The transfer of employees at its different office or branches is the prerogative of the management. It is for the management to consider which employee would be suitable at which place. An employee cannot raise a grievance that why he or she has been picked up for transfers and why not others. If such an argument is entertained then no employee can be transferred since every employee would raise a grievance why others have not been transferred. When an employee has accepted appointment knowing fully that transfer was an incident of his service, he cannot claim any vested right to remain at a particular place.
7. There is no law or rule that a person who is active in union cannot be transferred. An active worker of a trade union has no special rights against transfer vis a vis other employees. Transfer from one branch to other is a normal incident of service for every worker whether he is active in union or not. A court can interfere into the transfer order only if specific malafides are alleged against the management and those malafides are proved.
8. The petitioner, till her transfer was not known to her, had not made any representation to the management and it was only after she learnt about her own transfer, she made some representations raising grievance of other employees as concluded by the Tribunal. Tribunal also noted that the transfer of petitioner was made due to administrative exigencies by the management and this Court cannot disturb the findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal.
9. There was an agreement between the management and the union, which was entered into on 1.7.1988. This agreement was entered into after negotiations between the union and management and a package deal was signed between the parties. As per this package deal union had agreed as under:
The union also agrees that it shall withdraw the dispute raised by them with regard to Mr. Shyam Dutt and Mr. D.R. Jain for their transfer to Amritsar and Bilaspur, under Section 9A and 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act which is pending before Shri Piyush Sharma, Conciliation Officer. The union agrees that it has understood the provisions regarding rationalisation of manpower etc., as incorporated in the settlement and it shall not oppose such transfer of the employees in the interest of the Company.
10. It is clear that the management had made it known to the union that transfers for administrative exigencies shall continue to be there and the union shall not oppose these transfers. The agreement was binding on each and every worker of the company and petitioner cannot deny this agreement. Even if, the agreement had not been there, the petitioner while accepting service had specifically agreed that her job was transferable.
11. The plea of the petitioner that there was no office of the management at Chandigarh and she was still transferred there, is baseless. The record, shows that initially the management had hired a place and started its work and in June 1989 a regular office was opened in commercial area of Chandigarh. The transfer order issued to the petitioner gives the address where she was to report in Chandigarh and that was the place where office of the management was functional.
12. The petitioner had not been able to substantiate how Mr. A.P.Singh was not competent to issue her transfer order. Moreover, an order even if issued by an incompetent authority, if ratified by competent authority, is a valid order and cannot be challenged on this ground.
13. Accordingly, I find no force in the writ petition and the writ petition is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs.