Unilateral refusal remarks on transfer orders without independent proof of service constitute illegal termination.

The Petitioner joined the Respondent-company as a Premix Assistant in 2005

He alleged that on November 1, 2015, his services were illegally terminated without payment of salary and bonus, and he was physically prevented from entering the factory

The Respondent contended that the Petitioner was not terminated but transferred to its Ambad (Jalna) division—approximately 300 km away—via an order dated November 1, 2015, which the Petitioner purportedly refused to accept

The Labour Court No. 3, Pune, dismissed the Petitioner's reference in 2021, accepting the Respondent's version of refusal to join the transferred post

The Petitioner challenged this, noting the Respondent was under financial distress (evidenced by a SARFAESI Act notice) and that the transfer was a pretext for termination

1. Whether the Petitioner’s services were illegally terminated by the Respondent or if he failed to report to a validly transferred post

2. Whether the transfer order dated November 1, 2015, was a genuine administrative action or a device to effectuate termination

3. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India

It applied the principle that the burden of proof lies on the employer to demonstrate that a transfer order was genuine, properly served, and communicated

The Court further applied the doctrine of "Substance over Form" in service law, holding that the real nature and effect of an employer's action must be scrutinized regardless of the nomenclature used

Regarding back wages, the Court followed the principle of balancing equities, considering whether the employee made efforts to secure alternative employment and their current income status

The High Court found the Respondent failed to provide cogent evidence of attempting to serve the transfer order via recognized modes like speed post

It held that a unilateral remark of "refusal" on the order by the management, without independent corroboration, is insufficient proof of service

The Court noted that the transfer order was impracticable, as it required the Petitioner to report 300 km away on the very same day it was issued

Furthermore, the Respondent’s financial instability and the lack of subsequent follow-up communications (letters or notices) to the Petitioner to resume duties indicated that the transfer was a "device" to hide illegal termination

The Court concluded that since the Respondent had control over the records and failed to prove proper communication, the benefit of the doubt must go to the employee

On back wages, the Court noted the Petitioner’s admission of earning through daily wage labor and vegetable selling, which justified a reduction in the quantum of back wages

It held that the discontinuance of the Petitioner’s services on November 1, 2015, was illegal and amounted to termination in substance

The Respondent was directed to reinstate the Petitioner with continuity of service

However, back wages were restricted to 50% from the date of termination until reinstatement due to the Petitioner's interim earnings

Compliance was ordered within eight weeks