- (1.) The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether an employer can ask his employee to forgo his employment with it and accept the offer of employment with some other employer and on his refusal to do so, terminate his service. The petitioner was in the employment of Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd., respondent No. 1 herein. He was retrenched from service with effect from 10th March, 1986. Aggrieved by the order of retrenchment, the petitioner filed a complaint of unfair labour practice against the respondent before the Labour Court which was rejected. The petitioner has challenged the above order by this writ petition.
(2.) The material facts of the case, briefly stated, are as follows : The petitioner is a qualified accountant holding a B. Com. degree. He had also passed intermediate examination of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. On 15th May, 1979 the petitioner received an interview call for the post of accounts assistant in the accounts department of M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (the 1st respondent, hereinafter referred to as "the respondent company"). The petitioner appeared for the interview. He was selected for the said post and appointed by the respondent company by appointment letter dated 5th July 1979. The appointment took effect from 15th July, 1979. The petitioner was put on probation for a period of six months from the date of joining. He was confirmed in that post on 11th December, 1979. The petitioner worked in the said post for about 5 years till 31st July, 1984 when by an office order dated 26th July, 1984 it was directed by the Chief Accountant of the respondent company that the petitioner who was working as accounts assistant in the accounts department of the Head Office would work in the Central Share Department. He was required to report to one Mr. K.R. Bharucha of the Central Share Department at Maker Towers, Cuffe Parade, Bombay. By the very same office order one Mr. Surti who was working as assistant in the Central Share Department was directed to work in the fixed deposit section. On 1st August, 1984, the petitioner reported to Mr. K.R. Bharucha of the Central Share Department and he was allotted work in that department. While working in the share department, the petitioner came across some reports about the likely transfer of his service to a newly formed company viz., Tata Share Registry Private Limited along with other members of the staff working in the share department. On the basisaof the above report, the petitioner made a representation to the Director of Finance of the respondent company on 31st December, 1985 expressing his disinclination to go on transfer to the new company in the event of any such transfer taking place. On 30th January, 1986, the petitioner was informed by the company secretary of the respondent company Mr. Y.M. Bhangle that the Tata Central Share Department had been closed down and the work of handling share registry had been entrusted to a new company called Tata Share Registry Private Ltd. (Tata Share Registry). He was also informed that the new company, Tata Share Registry Private Ltd. had agreed to provide employment to the petitioner on their Terms and Conditions and were additionally offering a lumpsum compensation in consideration of his foregoing employment with the respondent company. He was asked to get in touch with one Mr. Ashok Maitra of the Tata Share Registry for finalisation of the formalities. It may be pertinent to mention here that the petitioner since his employment in the year 1979 as an assistant in the accounts department of the respondent company was althroughout in the employment of respondent company. He never ceased to be the employee of respondent company. By office order dated 26th July, 1984 of the Chief Accountant of the respondent company, the petitioner was asked to work with effect from 1st August, 1984 in the Central Share Department of the respondent company in place of accounts department where he had been working so long. The above transfer did not affect his service with the respondent company. he continued to be on the rolls of the respondent company. There is no dispute about it. His salary was also paid by the respondent company. This is also evident from the tax deduction certificate issued by the respondent company for the relevant period when he was working in the Central Share Department.
(3.) The petitioner replied to the letter of the Company Secretary of the respondent company dated 30th January, 1986 by his letter dated 7th February, 1986. He informed him of his unwillingness to accept the offer. The petitioner categorically declined to resign from respondent company and accept the new employment offered to him. By another letter dated 12th February, 1986 addressed to the Company Secretary of the respondent company the petitioner put on record that he was orally threatened with termination of service in the event of his refusal to accept the new offer which was contrary to law. In reply, the Company Secretary of the respondent company wrote letter dated 19th February, 1986 to the petitioner. In the said letter it was stated that the Tata Central Share Department where the petitioner was working had been closed down and the work of handling the share registry had been taken over by another company called Tata Share Registry Private Limited. It was also stated that 16 other employees like the petitioner working in the erstwhile Tata Central Share Department who were rendered surplus consequent to the said closure of the Central Share Department had agreed to accept employment with the new Tata Share Registry Private Limited, on the Terms and Conditions agreed upon between them. He was informed that two of the employees instead of accepting the new employment had opted for retirement. It was also mentioned in the above letter that before making the offer of new employment to the employees working in the Central Share Department the matter had been discussed with their representatives. It was emphasised that the offer of employment made by Tata Share Registry Private Limited to the employees of the respondent company working in Central Share Department had been accepted by all other employees working in the said department except the petitioner. The petitioner was informed that though the new company Tata Share Registry Limited was different from respondent company, care had been taken to protect the gross emoluments of the employees and in addition they were given a compensation of Rs. 40,000 to take care of loss of other banefits to the extent possible. The petitioner was, therefore, asked to accept the employment offer made by the new company Tata Share Registry Private Limited as had been done by his other colleagues placed in similar situation. The petitioner did not accept the offer. On the other hand, by letter dated 25th February, 1986, he reiterated his resolve to continue in the employment of the respondent company and to retire as an employee of the said company and not to accept the new employment offered to him. In the said letter the petitioner also explained to the Company Secretary of the respondent company that he could not be equated with other employees who had accepted the offer of employment in the new company or opted to retire because they were working on the permanent rolls of the Central Share Department whereas he had been appointed in the year 1979 on the permanent rolls of the Accounts Department and had althroughout been working in the said department till he was directed by office order dated 26th July, 1984 to work in the Central Share Department. The case of the petitioner, in other words, was that his working in the Central Share Department was a temporary phenomena. He was qualified to work only in the accounts department and was accordingly employed specifically in that department where he worked for long 5 years till the issue of office order by which he was asked to work in other department. The Company secretary of the respondent company, by letter dated 10th March, 1986, reiterated his statements about the closure of Central Share Department etc. and the offer of employment in the new company to the persons working in that department. The petitioner was also informed by the said letter that "there was no other position in the company where his experience in the share department could be fruitfully utilised". It was also mentioned that it was not feasible for the company to disturb its established work set up by retaining the petitioner in employment and retrenching some other employees junior in service but doing work of altogether different nature than what the petitioner had been doing in the share department. For the above reasons the petitioner was informed that his services would stand terminated with effect from 10th March 1986.;