Married Daughter Cannot Be Excluded From Compassionate Appointment Solely On The Ground Of Marriage: Chhattisgarh High Court Allahabad HC Condemns Lawyers Seeking Adjournments To Attend District Courts Inherent Powers Under Section 151 CPC Cannot Be Invoked For Restoration Of Possession When Statutory Remedy Of Restitution Exists: Calcutta High Court Invoke Preventive Detention Laws Against Sand Mining Kingpins: Supreme Court Directs ED Probe To Protect Chambal Sanctuary Res Judicata Bars Pendente Lite Purchaser From Re-Agitating Impleadment Under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC If Rejected Under Order I Rule 10: Supreme Court Consumer Complaints Can Continue Against Promoters & Co-Developers Even If Corporate Debtor Is Under IBC Moratorium: Supreme Court IBC Moratorium Protects Only Corporate Debtor, Does Not Bar Consumer Complaints Against Promoters & Directors: Supreme Court Vehicle Registration Certificate Relevant But Not Conclusive For Deciding Interim Custody Under Section 451 CrPC: Supreme Court Lawyer Has No Unqualified Right To Continuous Presence During Entire Interrogation Under Section 38 BNSS: Supreme Court Mandating Continuous Videography Of Accused During Transit Is Unworkable, May Lead To Unfounded Allegations: Supreme Court Centre Introduces FCRA Amendment Bill 2026: Proposes Vesting Of Defunct NGO Assets In 'Designated Authority', Mandates Prior Nod For Probe Written Communication Of Grounds Of Arrest Not Mandatory For Arrests Prior To SC's 'Mihir Rajesh Shah' Judgment: Orissa High Court Passing Ex-Parte Maintenance Order Without Verifying Status Of WhatsApp Or Email Notice Violates Natural Justice: Madhya Pradesh High Court Training ChatGPT On Copyrighted News Is 'Fair Dealing', Does Not Amount To Infringement: Delhi High Court Refuses To Enjoin OpenAI Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rethinking Access to Justice: Proposing a Client-Choice Bar-Integrated Model as a Viable Alternative to the LADC System Delhi Police Grants Permission To Advocates To Protest At Jantar Mantar On August 7 Over LADC Concerns Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

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