Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

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.

Similar News