Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

Transfers to Any Company Establishment Not Prohibited by Standing Orders : Supreme Court Upholds Legal Validity of Employee Transfers as Per Appointment Terms

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the legality of transferring employees under the terms of their appointment, setting aside the judgment of the Karnataka High Court. The Bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta delivered their decision on March 21st, 2024, in the case of M/S. Divgi Metal Wares Ltd. vs. M/S. Divgi Metal Wares Employees Association & Anr. (Civil Appeal No(s). 2032/2011).

The judgment revolved around the legal question of whether the Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, particularly Clause 20, permitted the transfer of employees across the company's various establishments in India. The apex court examined whether such transfers were in conflict with the terms of employment contracts.

The appellant, M/S. Divgi Metal Wares Ltd., challenged the Karnataka High Court's decision that had disallowed the transfer of employees as per the Clause 20 of the Standing Orders. The case stemmed from the company transferring several employees from its Sirsi factory to Pune due to operational needs, which was contested by the employee's association.

Justice Gavai, in the judgment, delved deeply into the interpretation of the Standing Orders vis-à-vis the employment contracts. The Court referred to the precedent set in Cipla Ltd. vs Jayakumar R. and Another, emphasizing, “the terms of the appointment and confirmation would permit the transfer of an employee to any department or any works or offices belonging to the company.”

Further, the Court observed, “Nothing contained in these standing Orders shall operate in derogation of any law for the time being in force or to the prejudice of any right under a contract of service, custom or usage, or an agreement settlement or award applicable to the establishment.” Thus, upholding that transfers, as per employment terms, are valid and not overridden by the Standing Orders.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of M/S. Divgi Metal Wares Ltd., setting aside the judgments and orders of the Karnataka High Court. It was held that the employee transfers were lawful as per the terms of appointment, notwithstanding the modifications in the Standing Orders.

Date of Decision: March 21, 2024

M/S. Divgi Metal Wares Ltd. vs. M/S. Divgi Metal Wares Employees Association & Anr.

Latest Legal News