Low-paid employee’s transfer to distant place will lead to his economic death: High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, November 30

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that transferring a lowly-paid employee to a distant location is manifestly improper, as the move can lead to the worker’s economic demise. Justice Harsh Bunger of the High Court also made it clear that a low-income employee could not reasonably be expected to sustain himself and his family at two separate locations.

The ruling came as Justice Bunger upheld the award passed by a Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court holding as “not fair, correct and legal” the transfer of 15 workmen from one unit to others by Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL).

Referring to judicial pronouncements on the issue, Justice Bunger asserted: “It is manifest that it is not proper to transfer a lowly-paid employee to a distant place as this would result in economic death of such lowly paid employee. A lowly paid employee cannot be expected to maintain himself and his family at two places”.

Justice Bunger observed BEL –– a Government of India enterprise under the Ministry of Defence with its head office at Bangalore having nine manufacturing units spread all over the country –– was meeting emerging strategic needs of defence forces. It was engaged in design, development, manufacture and supply of equipment and systems in the area of communication, radar, fire control system etc.

It appeared that BEL issued transfer order dated June 26, whereby 15 employees were transferred from the Panchkula unit to other units in Ghaziabad, Chennai, Machlipatnam and Navi Mumbai, following which the Bharat Electronics Workers’ Union, Panchkula, raised an industrial dispute.

After considering the material and evidence on the record, the tribunal below accepted the reference. It observed that the workmen were entitled to join the Panchkula unit, following which BEL filed the writ petition before the High Court.

Justice Bunger asserted the impugned award’s perusal showed that the tribunal had spelled out cogent reasons for holding the transfer order to be “not fair, correct and legal”. The counsel for petitioner-BEL had not been able to dislodge the findings returned by the tribunal. The compelling exigency/need for transferring the services of 15 workmen had also not been brought to the fore.

“I am of the considered view that the impugned award does not call for any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction by this court. There is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed and the award passed by the Tribunal below is upheld,” Justice Bunger concluded.