1 wp-1738-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi WRIT PETITION NO. 1738 OF 2010. Iqbal A. Ansari. ..Petitioner. v/s. Darmila Fashions Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. .... Mr. N.M. Ganguli, for Petitioner. Mr. K.M. Naik, a/w. Mr. S.P. Salkar, for Respondent. .... CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 13TH SEPTEMBER 2010. P.C. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has impugned the Award dated 11th November 2009, passed by the Eleventh Labour Court, Mumbai, dismissing the Reference with costs. 2. This is a case where the Petitioner - workman has in the garb of oral termination, challenged his transfer by the Respondent to Alibag from Mumbai before the Labour Court knowing fully well that otherwise the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter of transfer which is within the powers of the Industrial Court. 3. According to the Petitioner, he was on leave from 2nd August 2001 to 13th August 2001. When he resumed work on 13th August 2001, he was asked to resign. When he refused to do so, he was told that his services are transferred to Alibag and that he should report at Alibag. The first letter written by the Petitioner to the 2 wp-1738-10 Respondent is dated 16th August 2001 (wrongly typed as 16th August 2000) i.e. on the third day after 13th August 2001. In the said letter, the Petitioner has recorded that on 13th August 2001, he was not allowed to resume his duties and was told that he should report for work at Alibag and on his refusal to do so, he was not allowed to resume his duties at Mumbai. It is further recorded that the Respondent Company has no right to transfer the Petitioner to Alibag or any other place. The Petitioner thereafter, has attempted to improve his case by alleging that on 13th August 2001 when he tried to resume his duties at Mumbai, he was asked to resign. On his refusal to resign, he was asked to report for work at Alibag. The said allegation, therefore, is per se, false and made only as an afterthought. In fact, a perusal of the cross-examination of the Director of the Company on behalf of the Petitioner – Workman shows that he has been cross-examined on the issue pertaining to the right of the Company to transfer the Petitioner from one place to another. The Company has at every stage made it clear that the services of the Petitioner are not terminated but he is asked to report at Alibag. 4. The Learned Presiding Officer, Eleventh Labour Court, by his Award dated 11th November 2009, after appreciating the facts as well as the evidence in the matter, has correctly come to the 3 wp-1738-10 conclusion that from the evidence it is revealed that in the garb of oral termination, the Petitioner is challenging his transfer by the Respondent to Alibag from Mumbai because otherwise, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter of transfer, as such matters fall within the powers of the Industrial Court. The Learned Presiding Officer has after appreciating the facts and the law by giving cogent reasons, correctly dismissed the Reference by his Award dated 11th November 2009. The impugned Award, therefore, needs no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. 5. Before parting with this order, it is necessary to record that the learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent Company once again fairly gave an offer to the Petitioner to join the establishment of the Respondent Company at Alibag. However, the said offer was rejected by the Petitioner, who is present in Court. The Petitioner has on inquiry raised by the Court as to what the Petitioner is doing for his livelihood since the year 2001, has informed the Court that he has been doing tailoring jobs over the years. [ S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ]