Workman's Voluntary Refusal To Work In Reassigned Department After Departmental Transfer Doesn't Amount To Termination Of Service: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court single bench of Justice Mauna M. Bhatt held that a workman's refusal to work in a reassigned department after a departmental transfer does not constitute 'termination' by the Management if the provisions of such transfers were included in the Workman's appointment letters. Brief Facts: The Petitioner (“Workman”) was employed as a Machine Operator in...
The Gujarat High Court single bench of Justice Mauna M. Bhatt held that a workman's refusal to work in a reassigned department after a departmental transfer does not constitute 'termination' by the Management if the provisions of such transfers were included in the Workman's appointment letters.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioner (“Workman”) was employed as a Machine Operator in the production department of M/s Meet Chetans Private Limited (“Management”) since October 15, 1986. However, his services were terminated by the Management's owner on April 8, 2011. Feeling aggrieved, the Workman filed a reference before the Labour Court. The Labour Court rejected the reference, prompting the Workman to file a petition in the Gujarat High Court (“High Court”) challenging the decision.
The Workman contended that the Labour Court erroneously categorized the issue as a 'transfer' rather than a 'termination'. He argued that without documentation supporting the transfer claim, the termination was unjustified. He highlighted a communication from him to the conciliation officer stating that there was a clear case of termination rather than transfer.
The Management argued that the Workman's appointment order had a provision for departmental transfer. Originally he was appointed as a 'Helper' and later his department was reassigned. However, the Workman himself refused to work in the new department which constituted abandonment of duties. The Management presented the intimation letters given to the Workman, informing him of duty transfer. It also emphasized that the Workman admitted during the cross-examination that he refused to work in any other department apart from his original one. Since departmental transfer was a stipulated condition of employment, formal documentation was unnecessary. It further pointed out that the Workman's response to the conciliation officer indicated a willingness to return to his previous department.
Observations by the High Court:
The High Court noted that the Workman served as a Helper from October 15, 1986, until April 7, 2011. It noted that the initial appointment and confirmation orders explicitly included conditions regarding departmental transfer. Moreover, communications from the Management on June 14, 2011, and June 29, 2011, indicated that the Workman was reassigned as a Helper in the Fixing department. Additionally, it noted that the Workman did not respond to letters from the Management. In a reply before the conciliation officer, the Management expressed its willingness to employ him as a Helper in the Fixing Department.
In light of these observations, the High Court upheld the order of the Labour Court. Nevertheless, acknowledging the Workman's more than 20 years of service and the prolonged litigation since 2011, the High Court held it appropriate to award the Workman Rs. 1 lakh for his service and legal dues.
Case Title: Kiranbhai Harkishandas Patel Alias Kiranbhai Harkishandas Bhandari vs M/S Meet Chetans Private Limited
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 61
Case Number: R/Special Civil Application No. 5297 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Ms Siddhi Vadodaria for Thakkar and Pahwa Advocates for The Petitioner(S) No. 1
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr Yogi K Gadhia for The Respondent(S) No. 1