Inter-division transfers of reinstated employees require valid, stated reasons.

The petitioner, a Driver-Cum-Conductor with NWKRTC, was dismissed in 2012. The Labour Court set aside the dismissal and directed his reinstatement; the High Court upheld the award on 29 January 2025. He was reinstated and posted at Bailhongal Depot in Belagavi Division, but was subsequently transferred to Uttara Kannada Division and assigned to Bhatkal Depot.

He challenged the transfer, relying on the Corporation’s 30 November 2020 guidelines concerning employees reinstated pursuant to court or appellate orders and clause 37 of the 16 February 1978 Supplementary Memorandum of Settlement, which restricts inter-unit transfers of Class III and IV employees to administrative grounds or promotion where they cannot be accommodated within the unit.

1. Whether the transfer of the petitioner from Belagavi Division to Uttara Kannada Division was legally sustainable when the transfer order did not state reasons beyond administrative grounds.

2. Whether the Corporation could transfer the petitioner across divisions, subject to the requirement of assigning valid reasons.

Clause 37 of the Supplementary Memorandum of Settlement dated 16 February 1978 provides that transfers of Class III and IV employees from one unit to another may be made only on administrative grounds or on promotion where the employee cannot be accommodated within the unit for want of vacancy.

The Court noted that the Managing Director was the final authority for effecting transfers of NWKRTC employees.

It applied the reasoning in Sri Gopal Shivappa Lamani Nayak v. The Divisional Controller and Another, W.P. No. 107122 of 2025 (S-TR), particularly paragraph 7, that a transfer order should disclose reasons and that transfer decisions should be governed by rules or circulars ensuring transparency.

It distinguished W.P. No. 109118 of 2025 (S-KSRTC), where the petitioner had approached the Court immediately after transfer.

The Managing Director’s earlier direction to reinstate the petitioner and post him in “NK” did not specify that he should be placed outside Belagavi Division; the subsequent reinstatement at a depot in that division supported the view that he could be accommodated there.

The later inter-division transfer order disclosed no reasons for moving him out of Belagavi Division. Applying the reasoning in Gopal Shivappa Lamani Nayak, the Court found that the absence of reasons rendered the transfer legally infirm.

The Court also considered that the petitioner had reported for duty as directed and challenged the transfer after doing so.

It directed the Corporation to reinstate him at Bailhongal Depot in Belagavi Division in accordance with the order dated 21 July 2025, while reserving the Corporation’s liberty to transfer him from one division to another if it assigns valid reasons.