The Bombay High Court has observed that merely because the transfer is found to be exceptional, the same is not ground for the Industrial Tribunal to stay the transfer.
In that context, the Bench of Justice Sandeep V Marne observed that, “Mere filing of earlier litigation is not a reason to infer existence of malafides for interdicting the order of the transfer. It was not necessary for the Petitioners to explain, as expected by the learned Member, as to whether transfer could be with earlier designation or retention could be effected at Mahape on promotional post. The learned Member has erred in holding that the documents filed by Petitioners creates doubt. It was not necessary for Petitioners to demonstrate past precedent for justifying the Respondent’s transfer. Merely because the transfer is found to be exceptional, the same was not ground for learned Member to stay the same.
Ganesh Gopinath Rane, the respondent, worked as a Senior Printer at the Indian Express printing press in Navi Mumbai. He and other employees, fearing adverse actions due to Union elections in August 2022, filed a complaint against Indian Express. The Industrial Court initially stayed terminations and transfers, but the High Court later set this aside. Rane contested his deputation to Lucknow, but the High Court allowed it with the condition that it would not exceed six months.
Rane was subsequently promoted to Supervisor and transferred to the production department at the Walunj Printing Press in Aurangabad, effective April 10, 2024. Rane filed an unfair labor practice complaint, alleging that the transfer was a mala fide act and sought to stay the transfer. The Industrial Court temporarily restrained Indian Express from implementing the promotion and transfer order until a final decision was made.
Indian Express then filed a writ petition against this order, producing documentary evidence to justify Rane’s transfer to Aurangabad, citing the retirement of an employee that created a vacancy. Email correspondence from the All India Production Head highlighted the urgency of maintaining print quality in the absence of a Supervisor at Aurangabad. Rane argued that the transfer order was systematic harassment due to his objections regarding the Union elections, which he claimed were heavily influenced by the Petitioner Management.
The High Court noted that Rane’s promotion included a salary increase and a special allowance for working in Aurangabad. His employment contract allowed for transfers anywhere in India. The court held that Indian Express had a valid administrative reason for the transfer and that court interference in such matters is limited unless there is clear evidence of personal bias or mala fide.
It was found that Rane’s allegations of bias were vague and unsupported by evidence. It was also noted that Rane did not run in the union elections and that his claims of discrimination were not substantiated.
The Cpirt concluded that Rane had not justified an interim stay on his transfer and set aside the Industrial Court’s order. However, with the petitioner’s consent, the court allowed Rane to remain in Navi Mumbai until January 31, 2025, and then report to Aurangabad on February 1, 2025. Cause Title: The Indian Express (P) Ltd. and Ors. vs Ganesh Gopinath Rane
