Minor Children's Difficulty In Adapting To New Academic Environments Insufficient Grounds To Void Transfer Order:Delhi High Court

Background

Ravinder Mandal, a Senior Foreman with DLF Universal Ltd., claimed that his continuous employment from 25th September 2007 to 21st January 2017 ended abruptly following a transfer order to Chennai. He alleged that this order was punitive, issued in retaliation for his refusal to assist the management in exchanging currency notes during the 2016 demonetization period. According to Mandal, senior officials grew hostile and told him that his services would end by March 2017. Despite his request to delay the transfer until March for his children's education, he was denied the ability to continue work in Delhi and instructed to report to Chennai. DLF countered by arguing that Mandal was a transferrable employee and that his role as Senior Foreman did not make him a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. They asserted that the transfer arose from administrative needs, and despite several reminders, Mandal had refused to comply.

Arguments

Counsel for Ravinder Mandal argued that the transfer was a veiled termination, motivated by animosity stemming from demonetization-related disagreements. The counsel emphasized the harm to Mandal's children's education and highlighted that DLF failed to provide necessary transfer facilities, such as moving expenses, thereby making compliance impossible.

DLF's counsel contended that the transfer was a legitimate administrative decision. They stressed the petitioner's non-compliance with a lawful transfer order and pointed out that Mandal had chosen not to avail himself of transfer benefits outlined in DLF's HR Manual, such as reimbursement of relocation expenses. The counsel emphasized that no documentary evidence supported claims of service termination or malafide intent.

Court's Reasoning

Firstly, the High Court reiterated that transfers are a natural service incident and administrative exigencies, not arbitrary will, guide them. Unless compelling evidence of malafide is produced, judicial interference is minimal. The court stated that the “transfer of an employee being an incident of service, is purely in the domain of the employer based on administrative exigencies.”

Secondly, Justice Kathpalia underscored that Mandal's job was explicitly transferrable under his employment terms. The petitioner himself admitted that DLF had made several attempts to serve him the transfer order, but he had refused to accept it. The court highlighted that defiance of transfer instructions constituted misconduct. Furthermore, the High Court assessed the HR Manual, emphasizing that the onus was on Mandal to estimate and claim shifting expenses, which he failed to do. The highlighted that the petitioner should have pursued reimbursement post-transfer, not defied the transfer altogether.

Lastly, regarding the children's education claim, the court found that the Labour Court had rightly noted that minor children aged six and four years could easily adapt to new academic environments. The High Court affirmed that these were insufficient grounds to void a transfer order. The High Court concluded that the transfer was a genuine administrative requirement, not an act of retribution. Mandal's non-compliance, therefore, had no valid justification. Consequently, the Labour Court's ruling was upheld.

Decided on: 06-11-2024

Case No: W.P.(C) 15094/2024

Case Name: Ravinder Mandal v. DLF Universal Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1218

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Pulkit Prakash and Mr. Arjun Mohan

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Varun Kumar

Click Here To Read/Download The Order