Delhi High Court
Sh. Ram Pratap Sharma vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 4 May, 2009
Author: V.K.Shali
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) NO. 8715/2009
Date of Decision: 4th May, 2009
%
Sh. Ram Pratap Sharma .... Petitioner
Through : Counsel for the petitioner
(Appearance not given).
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. .... Respondents
Through : Counsel for the respondents
(Appearance not given).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? YES
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? NO
V. K. SHALI, J. (Oral)
*
1. The petitioner in the present writ petition has challenged the
award in ID No. 299/06/96 in case titled S/Shri Ram Pratap
Sharma Vs. M/s Hymatic Agro Equipment Pvt. Ltd. decided by
the learned Labour Court on 8th August, 2008. In this award the
learned Labour Court has held that the services of the
petitioner/workman were not illegally and unjustifiably
terminated, and therefore, he is not entitled to any relief. As
against this, the finding was that the petitioner/workman has
himself abandoned the job on account of his transfer from Delhi to
Noida. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone
through the award.
2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
is that the petitioner was transferred from his place of posting at
42, New Wazirpur Industrial Complex, New Delhi-52 to their
concern in Noida which was not a part of their terms and
conditions of appointment, and therefore, his transfer and the
non-joining at the new place of posting tantamounts to
termination of the services of the petitioner. The petitioner had
placed on record one sample appointment letter of his co-worker
known as Servejeet Yadav issued by the respondent/management.
Clause 4 of the appointment letter gave power to the
respondent/management to put the services of an employee to the
best interest of the respondent/management. The exact language
of Clause-4 read as under:
"That we reserve the right to put your
services in any capacity other than
mentioned above if we are satisfied that it is
in the best interest of the factory of the
nature of your duties."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his
contention has placed reliance on case titled M/s Kundan Sugar
Mills Vs. Ziyauddin & Ors. AIR 1960 SC 650.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner. The judgment which has been cited by
the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the fact
of the case. In the judgment relied upon the Supreme Court has
held that in case an employee is transferred from one organization
to another organization which was not in existence at the time of
his initial appointment than such a transfer by the employer to
the new concern is not implied by the conditions of the service.
5. In the case in hand neither the petitioner proved his
appointment letter nor he has been able to establish that the
concern to which he was sought to be transferred was not in
existence at the time of his appointment. Both the concerns as a
matter of fact belonged to the same management. Apart from this
terms and conditions shown in the sample appointment letter also
give power to the management to utilize the services of an
employee in the best possible manner so as to suit their
requirement. Since in the instant case the services of the
petitioner were sought to be utilized by transferring him from
Delhi to Noida where they failed to join, this tantamounts to
abandonment of their employment. The learned Labour Court has
also given a finding of a fact in this regard.
6. This Court though does not sit as a court of appeal but it
does not find any perversity, illegality in the finding of the said
fact handed down by the learned Labour Court, accordingly, there
is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.
May 04, 2009 V.K. SHALI, J.
KP
