RAJNEESH KHAJURIA versus M/S. WOCKHARDT LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 1005 · Decided: 15-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1005
RAJNEESH KHAJURIA
v.
M/S. WOCKHARDT LTD. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 8989 of 2019)
JANUARY 15, 2020
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention
of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971:
s. 7 and Schedule IV Items 3, 7, 9 and 10 – Complaint by
employee-workman – Against the employer Company and its General
Manager – Alleging that his transfer to Head-office of the employer-
company was unjust, unfair illegal, improper, arbitrary and mala
fide and amounted to unfair labour practices u/items 3, 7, 9 and 10
of Schedule IV – Plea of the employer interalia was that since the
service of the employee had already been terminated due to his not
joining at the transferred place, the employee not being in the
employment, complaint of unfair practices cannot be entertained –
Stand of the employee was that the termination order was not real,
existent or bonafide, as he never received the termination order –
Industrial Court decided in favour of the employee – High Court
set aside the order of Industrial Court – Appeal to supreme Court –
Held: The termination order does not become fake or ingenuine,
just because the employee did not receive it – The act of transfer
can be unfair labour practice, if the transfer is actuated by malafide
– In the present case the employee has proved neither malice in fact
nor malice in law – The Industrial Court does not have jurisdiction
to examine the question of termination as a consequence of the
order of transfer because the unfair labour practices mentioned in
Item 1 of Schedule IV fall within the jurisdiction of Labour Court
and not Industrial Court – Jurisdiction.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:  1. The termination order is said to be fake, bogus
and not real or bona fide for the reason that the employee never
received any termination letter either by courier, UPC or by any
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 1005
1005
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1006
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
other mode of communication. The statement of the witness of
the employer is that the transfer order and termination letter are
true. He has identified the signatures of the authorised
representative on such documents as well. Therefore, it is not
possible to accept that the termination order is not in existence,
as the statement of the employer witness has not been challenged.
The only allegation is that the employee has not received the
termination letter. Therefore, the assertion that an order of
termination was not received by the employee is not relevant to
hold that the termination order was fake. The order was issued,
as deposed by the employer witness. Even if, the employee has
managed not to receive the same, the termination order does
not become fake or ingenuine. Thus, the appellant is not entitled
to dispute the termination order as not real or bona fide for the
reason that it was not received by him. [Paras 12 and 13]
[1014-G-H; 1015-A; 1016-E-F]
State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram (1969) 3 SCC 28 : [1970]
2 SCR 657 – relied on.
2.1 The act of transfer can be unfair labour practice if the
transfer is actuated by mala fide. The allegations of mala fide
have two facets – one malice in law and the other being malice in
fact. The challenge to the transfer is based upon malice in fact as
it is an action taken by the employer. [Para 14][1016-G]
2.2 The allegation in the complaint is that the transfer was
actuated for the reason that the employee had raised voice against
removal of one of the employees from the venue of a Conference.
The officers present in the said Conference were the Regional
Manager or Sales Manager, whereas order of transfer was passed
by General Manager-HR. It is an admitted fact that there is power
of transfer with the employer. The allegations are against the
persons present in the Conference but there is no allegation
against the person who has passed the order of transfer. None of
the named persons including the person present in Conference
have been impleaded as parties to rebut such allegations. Since
the order of transfer is in terms of the letter of appointment,
therefore, the mere fact that the employee was transferred will
per se not make it mala fide. The allegations of mala fide are
easier to levy than to prove. [Para 19][1021-E-G]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1007
2.3 The appellant has not laid any foundation to allege a
malice in law. Malice in law would be something which is done
without lawful excuse or an act done wrongfully and willfully
wi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.