Insurance Worker Who Refused Transfer Outside Kanyakumari Loses Reinstatement As Madras HC Upholds Firing, Citing Transferable Appointment

The respondent was employed by the appellant as a Customer Support Representative, later designated Customer Support Executive, initially based at Nagercoil.

After he declined to undertake tele-calling work, the appellant transferred him to its TLC Offsite office at Trichy.

The respondent refused the transfer, stating that he would not work outside Kanyakumari District, and the appellant terminated his employment on 12 October 2010, paying three months’ salary in lieu of notice.

The Labour Court found the termination unjustified and ordered reinstatement with 50% back wages and attendant benefits; the Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s writ petition.

The appellant’s writ appeal challenged those decisions.

The Court relied on the principle that an employer who has not held a domestic inquiry may, in appropriate cases, seek to justify its action by adducing evidence before the Labour Court or Tribunal; the Tribunal must assess that evidence on the merits.

It drew on Workmen v. Motipur Sugar Factory (P) Ltd., Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh, and Workmen v. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd., as set out in State of Uttarakhand v. Sureshwati.

It also referred to Novartis India Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, which states that failure to join at a transferred place may constitute misconduct, but dismissal for that misconduct ordinarily requires an opportunity to be heard.

The Court considered the appointment condition permitting transfer to another company location and the job-description clause requiring the employee to undertake other duties within his capacity.

The judgment does not identify a specific statutory provision as the basis for its holding.

The Court held that the appointment terms authorised the appellant to assign duties within the respondent’s capacity, including tele-calling, and to transfer him to another location where the company operated or had established an office.

It considered the respondent’s stated reason for refusing the transfer—his unwillingness to work outside Kanyakumari District—rather than his later contention that the Trichy office was not a branch of the appellant.

Applying the principles on adducing evidence before the Labour Court when no inquiry has been held, the Court concluded that the evidence established refusal to perform assigned duties and refusal to comply with a transferable-service condition.

It therefore rejected the Labour Court’s and Single Judge’s findings and held that termination was justified.

The respondent was held not entitled to service or monetary benefits beyond the three months’ salary already paid in lieu of notice; any interim relief already paid was not to be recovered.

There was no order as to costs.