02 July 2024 Employee Related >> Corporate Law  

An employee of the Indian Express newspaper, Mallinath Dighe, recently contested a transfer order issued by the company. The company directed Mr. Dighe to a supervisory position at their Aurangabad facility, citing upcoming retirements. However, Mr. Dighe argued the transfer was malicious due to his past complaints about union elections.

Mr. Dighe contended that the transfer was a form of punishment for questioning the fairness of elections within the company's employee union. He further argued that several senior employees at the Mahape facility possessed the necessary qualifications for the supervisory role.

The company countered by highlighting a clause in Mr. Dighe's employment contract allowing transfers within India. Additionally, they presented emails documenting upcoming retirements at the Aurangabad press, emphasizing the need for a new supervisor.

The court acknowledged the transfer clause in Mr. Dighe's contract and accepted the company's justification for needing a supervisor in Aurangabad. Furthermore, the court established that the burden of proving malice rested with Mr. Dighe.

To win his case, Mr. Dighe needed to demonstrate that the transfer was motivated by personal animosity or an ulterior motive, rather than legitimate business reasons. He was unable to provide convincing evidence to support his claim.

Based on the company's contractual right to transfer and Mr. Dighe's failure to establish malice, the court ruled against the employee. 

  Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971