IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 WA.No. 1920 of 2006() --------------------- {IN OP.11086/2000 OF THIS COURT} .................... APPELLANT(S): ------------------------- ASSYRIAN CHARITIES KURI LIMITED, RICE BAZAR ROAD, THRISSUR 680 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN (SR.) SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------------ 1. KERALA KURI COMPANY EMPLOYEES UNION (REG.NO.12/66) CHALLISSERY BUILDING, ROUDN WEST, THRISSUR-1 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. 2. LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2009, ALONG WITH WA NO. 742 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY, Ag.C.J. & V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.A.Nos.1920 of 2006 & 742 of 2007 ------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Koshy, Ag.C.J. Against the award of the Labour Court, Ernakulam in I.D.No.108/86, the Union filed the writ petition. According to them, employment was denied to two employees, merely because they did not join the Bangalore Office. One among those employees was a peon and the other was working as a clerk. The Labour Court found that the transfer is a service condition and they are transferable employees and transfer was correct and their termination was because they did not accept the transfer order. The learned single Judge found that the transfer was not a condition for service. There is no such condition in the appointment order. Therefore, there was no service condition and since transfer to Bangalore was against the service conditions, the same is illegal and therefore, they could not have been terminated for not joining the Bangalore office. 2. But since one employee viz., Francis was employed in a better job, there is no question of reinstatement. However, he was found to be entitled for gratuity and retrenchment compensation as per law. W.A.Nos.1920/06 & 742 of 2007 :: 2 :: 3. With regard to another employee Sri.Kochappu, it was directed that if he is willing to be employed, he should be reinstated. He was directed to report for duty within two weeks from the date of judgment. We are of the opinion that the learned single Judge has considered the matter in its entirety. It was also directed that if he is not rejoining duty, the management can proceed as if the workman has abandoned his employment. On the facts of the case, we are of the view that the learned single Judge has considered the matter in the proper perspective and the entire aspects are considered. There is no merit in these appeals filed by the management and the employee's union. Writ appeals are accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (J.B. KOSHY) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge