Refusal to Join a Service-Rule-Authorised Transfer Constitutes Voluntary Abandonment of Employment.

The company appointed Sanjoy Saha as a Trainee Medical Representative in 2010; he was later promoted to Pharma Sales Officer.

After an incident involving an assault on a company manager in Saha’s territory, the company transferred him from Kolkata to Bengaluru in April 2021.

Saha did not join at the transferred location despite repeated directions and maintained that the transfer was unjustified and connected to his union activity.

The company treated his employment as voluntarily abandoned with effect from 29 June 2021.

Saha brought a claim under Section 10(1B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Tribunal found the termination illegal, ordered reinstatement in Kolkata, and granted compensation and back wages.

The company’s review application was also dismissed. It then challenged both orders by writ petition.

1. Whether the Tribunal could examine the propriety of Saha’s transfer while deciding his individual termination dispute, where the transfer dispute had not been pursued to adjudication.

2. Whether Saha’s non-joining at Bengaluru amounted to voluntary abandonment of service, or whether the company’s action constituted illegal retrenchment or unfair labour practice.

3. Whether the Tribunal’s award and the order dismissing the review application were perverse or otherwise liable to be set aside.

The Court considered Sections 2(k), 2(oo), 2A, 25F, 25T and 25U of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, addressing the distinction between an individual termination dispute and a collective dispute concerning transfer, the statutory meaning of retrenchment, and the requirements applicable to retrenchment and unfair labour practice.

It also considered the company’s service rules, under which management could transfer a Medical Representative/Pharma Sales Officer within or outside the State and a confirmed employee could be terminated on notice or pay in lieu; the rules also provided for deemed abandonment after eight or more continuous days of unauthorised absence.

The judgment refers to authorities on abandonment, transfer, and malice cited by the parties, including G.T. Lad v. Chemical & Fibres of India Ltd., Syndicate Bank v. General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association, and Addisons Paints & Chemicals Ltd. v. Workmen.

The Court’s operative reasoning rested on the service rules and Saha’s failure to report to the transferred post.

The Court held that the service rules expressly authorised transfer outside the State, so the Bengaluru posting could not be treated as unjustified merely because of its distance from Kolkata.

It considered Saha’s admission that he received the directions to join but did not do so, together with the company’s repeated notices and the abandonment provision in its service rules, as supporting the company’s conclusion that he had abandoned his employment.

The Court also reasoned that the Tribunal should not have determined the propriety of the transfer in the individual termination proceeding, particularly where the union’s transfer dispute had not proceeded to adjudication.

It therefore found the Tribunal’s award unsupported by proper appreciation of the evidence and perverse.

It directed the company to pay Saha the benefits and dues to which he was entitled for the period from 2 April 2010 to 29 June 2021, within three months.