Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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