IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN WRIT PETITION No.29057/2017 (S-TR) BETWEEN :
SRI VASU A. T.
S/O. LATE A.T.T. GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (S), TOKEN NO.10954, SALES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, HINDUSTAN MACHINE TOOLS LIMITED, JALAHALLI, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU-560032. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI MUKKANNAPPA S. B., ADV.) AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR HINDUSTAN MACHINE TOOLS LIMITED, NO.59, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU-560032.
2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (MP/HR) HINDUSTAN MACHINE TOOLS LIMITED, NO.59, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU-560032. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MURALIDHAR H. M., ADV. FOR C/R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED TRANSFER ORDER DATED 5.4.2017 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS RELATES TO THE PETITIONER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONTINUE THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONER IN SALES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OF JALAHALLI HOBLI, HMT, BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE-32 TILL THE DATE OF HIS RETIREMENT OR IN ANY OTHER PLACE OR UNIT IN BANGALORE UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :
O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the legality of the transfer order dated 05.04.2017, whereby the petitioner is transferred from HMT Machine Tools Limited, Bangalore, to MTA, situated in Ajmer.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that in 1985, the petitioner was selected and appointed as an Engineer Trainee with the HMT Limited. From 1985 to 1987, he worked at the Bangalore Unit. At present, the petitioner is working on the post of Assistant General Manager with the respondent-Company at Bengaluru. So far, he has put in thirty-two years of service, out of which, he was posted outside the State of Karnataka for twenty-five years. Thus, he has put in seven years of service in the Bengaluru Unit. The petitioner is about to retire on 30.04.2018. However, despite the fact that he has hardly ten months to go before he retires, by order dated 05.04.2017, the petitioner has been transferred from Bengaluru to Ajmer. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the transfer order, on 08.04.2017, he submitted a representation before the respondent-Company. Since the representation did not elicit any response from the respondent-Company, the petitioner filed a writ petition, namely W.P.No.16886/2017, before this Court. Initially, by order dated 25.04.2017, this Court had granted interim stay in favour of the petitioner. However, by order dated 02.06.2017, the respondents were directed to consider the representation, keeping in mind that the petitioner is about to retire from his service. Consequently, the petitioner’s representation was considered by the respondent-Company. However, by endorsement dated 12.06.2017, the representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected. Hence, the present petition before this Court.
3. Mr. Mukkannappa S. B., the learned counsel for petitioner, has vehemently contended that the petitioner is about to complete his tenure of service as he is about to retire on 30.04.2018. Therefore, to disturb the petitioner on the last lap of his service is to cause injustice to him. Secondly, there are other employees and other Assistant General Managers who are equally qualified as the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner should not be disturbed during the fag end of his service career. Thirdly, despite the fact that this Court had directed the respondents to consider his representation, the same has been rejected without assigning any cogent reasons. Thus, rejection of the petitioner’s representation, and continuation of transfer order will cause a grave injustice to the petitioner. Hence, the transfer order deserves to be interfered with.
4. On the other hand, Mr. H. M. Muralidhar, the learned counsel for the respondent-Company, pleaded that while the Bangalore Unit is making some profit, the unit in Ajmer is already running into loss. Since the petitioner has earlier worked in Jaipur, and Ahmedabad, he has developed amicable relationship with the customers of the entire region in Ajmer Unit. Since the Ajmer unit is running at a loss, the respondent-Company is of the opinion that the petitioner’s expertise, and the experience can be utilised beneficially, for increasing the sales, in the said region in Rajasthan and Gujarat. Even in the endorsement dated 12.06.2017, the respondent-Company has clearly pointed out that although they are well aware of the fact that the petitioner is about to retire from the service, but they desperately need his experience, knowledge, and expertise for increasing their sales, and to improve their unit situated in Ajmer. Thus, the transfer is absolutely in the interest of the Company. Moreover, keeping the personal interest of the petitioner, the Company has already assured him that they will not disturb his family residing in the HMT Quarters, at Bengaluru. Thus, the Company is even willing to look after the welfare of the petitioner’s family members. Considering the desperate need of the Company, considering the fact that the Company needs to be saved from falling sales, and needs to improve its financial position, the Company has no other option, but to transfer the petitioner to their unit in Ajmer.
5. Heard the learned counsel for parties, and perused the transfer order, and the endorsement dated 12.06.2017.
6. Needless to say, the relationship between the employer and employee is a symbiotic one, where both the parties need to look after the interest of each other for their own mutual benefits. It is also trite to state that transfer is nothing but an incidence of service; it does not amount to punishment. Needlesstosay, the discretion to transfer an employee lies solely with the employer. While transferring an employee, the employer should not only consider the interest of the Company/administration, but also should consider the needs of the employee. However, the needs of the employee can never over shadow the needs of the organization. After all, the organization, a Company, or a Government, runs only because of the contribution made by its employees. While the employer has to be a model one, there should also be a sense of loyalty in the heart and mind of an employee towards the Company, or the employer. After all, the employees are the soldiers of the Company who must ensure that the company functions to its maximum potential and improves its financial condition. For, the growth of a Company/industry not only benefits other employees of the organization, but most importantly contributes to the growth of the nation.
7. A bare perusal of the endorsement dated 12.06.2017, clearly reveals that the respondent-Company is very well aware of the fact that the petitioner is about to retire. However, notwithstanding the personal difficulties of the petitioner, in being transferred to Ajmer, the Company is also keenly aware of its difficulties it is facing in increasing its sales in Rajasthan and Gujarat. According to the said endorsement, the sale performance at the HMT Machine Tools, Ajmer has dropped by 43% when compared to the previous year. According to the Company, the main reason for drastic drop in sales is due to non-availability of sufficient orders in the MTA unit. Therefore, they desperately need a person with sufficient experience, and expertise, who could bolster the sales in Jaipur, and Ahmedabad region.
8. The Company is also well aware of the fact that the petitioner has worked earlier in the said region, and has developed good relationship with the customers in the said region. Therefore, in order to increase the sale performance in the said region, it had no other option, but to transfer the petitioner to Ajmer.
9. Although the learned counsel for petitioner has vehemently contended that there are other AGM’s who are more competent than the petitioner, and who have long service period left to them, but the said contention is clearly unacceptable. For, it is for the Company to examine the suitability of the person for working in the Ajmer Unit. If the Company were of the opinion that other AGM’s of the Company are not upto the mark to carry out the difficult task of increasing the sale performance, the said decision of the company cannot be faulted by this Court. After all, this Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the decision of a Company. Freedom at the joints has to be given to the Company to decide about the transfers of its employees.
10. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality in the transfer order dated 05.04.2017. Being devoid of merit, this petition is hereby dismissed.
Np/-
Sd/- JUDGE