Bombay High Court Validates Transfer: Administrative Needs Outweigh Allegations of Retaliation"

Transfer was based on administrative needs, not mala fides: Justice Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court, on July 2, 2024, set aside an interim order by the Industrial Court that had temporarily restrained The Indian Express (P) Ltd. from implementing a promotion and transfer order for its employee, Ganesh Gopinath Rane. The court ruled that the transfer was justified by administrative exigencies and was not an act of retaliation against the employee.

The case revolved around the transfer and promotion of Ganesh Gopinath Rane from Mahape, Navi Mumbai, to Aurangabad, which was challenged by Rane on the grounds of harassment and alleged mala fide intentions. The Industrial Court, Thane, had initially granted an interim relief to Rane by staying the transfer order. The Indian Express (P) Ltd., along with other petitioners, subsequently approached the High Court to challenge this stay.

The court examined the necessity behind the transfer and promotion order. The petitioners argued that the transfer was driven by the retirement of key personnel at Aurangabad, citing specific email correspondence that indicated an urgent need for experienced staff at the Aurangabad printing press. Justice Sandeep V. Marne noted:

"Prima facie case of existence of exigency for transfer of Respondent on promotion as Supervisor at Aurangabad is made out."

Rane's primary contention was that the transfer was a punitive measure due to his involvement in union activities and previous litigations. However, the court emphasized that allegations of mala fides require substantial proof, which Rane failed to provide. Justice Marne stated:

"Mere filing of earlier litigation is not a reason to infer existence of malafides for interdicting the order of the transfer. It was not necessary for the Petitioners to explain, as expected by the learned Member, as to whether transfer could be with earlier designation or retention could be effected at Mahape on promotional post."

The court discussed the principles governing employee transfers, particularly in the context of administrative exigencies. It underscored that transferability is an inherent condition of employment and that the burden of proving mala fides lies heavily on the employee. The court cited several precedents, including E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N. and Rajendra Roy vs. Union of India and Anr., to support its reasoning.

Justice Marne remarked, "The allegations of malafides are often more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high order of credibility."

The High Court's decision to allow the writ petition underscores the importance of administrative needs in employment decisions, especially when such decisions are supported by documented evidence. By setting aside the Industrial Court's interim order, the judgment reaffirms the principle that employee transfers, when justified by administrative exigencies and not demonstrably tainted by mala fides, should not be interfered with by courts. This ruling is expected to have significant implications for similar cases, emphasizing the need for substantial proof when alleging mala fides in employment-related matters.

Date of Decision: July 2, 2024

The Indian Express (P) Ltd. and Ors. vs. Ganesh Gopinath Rane