37# % 19.02.2010 ) Present : Mr. K.K. Sabharwal for the petitioner. + CM. No. 2162/2010 in W.P.(C) No. 1034/2010 * Allowed subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) No. 1034/2010 By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the cc.nstitution of India the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned award whereby the learned Labour Court has given directions for the reinstatement of the respondent workman along with grant of 40% back wages. Mr. Sabharwal counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent workman failed to prove any mala fide or malice on the part of the petitioner behind the said transfer order. Counsel also submits that the transfer of the respondent workman was due to the administrative exigencies of the work and the being incidence of the service the respondent could not have refused to join the place of his transfer. Counsel further submits that all the dues towards the EPF and ESI were being deposited by the petitioner. Signing Date:13.08.2024 17:03:45 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length and gone through the records. The respondent workman was working on the post of Office Assistant for the last about 21 years in the office of the petitioner and suddenly he was transferred from his job to a distant place at Korba, Madhya Pradesh. The respondent workman proved on record that the said decision of transfer was taken by the petitioner management only when he had raised certain demands of non payment of his provident fund and other statutory dues. The learned labour court has carefully examined all the issues and came to the conclusion that the transfer of the petitioner was actuated by malice. The labour court also observed that the petitioner management failed to prove in its evidence any administrative exigency due to which decision of transfer of the respondent was taken. The labour court also observed that the management also failed to prove that the transfer was one of the conditions of the employment of the resopondent workman. Since the petitioner failed to prove before the Labour Court that the said transfer was due to bona fide reason or because of administrative exigencies, therefore, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned award. There is no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed. FEBRUARY 19, 2010 MG & KAILASH GAMBHIR,J