WP(C) No.8715/2009 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) NO. 8715/2009 Date of Decision: 4th May, 2009 % Sh. Ram Pratap Sharma …. Petitioner Through : Counsel for the petitioner (Appearance not given). Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. …. Respondents Through : Counsel for the respondents (Appearance not given). CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO V. K. SHALI, J. (Oral) * 1. The petitioner in the present writ petition has challenged the award in ID No. 299/06/96 in case titled S/Shri Ram Pratap Sharma Vs. M/s Hymatic Agro Equipment Pvt. Ltd. decided by the learned Labour Court on 8th August, 2008. In this award the learned Labour Court has held that the services of the petitioner/workman were not illegally and unjustifiably terminated, and therefore, he is not entitled to any relief. As WP(C) No.8715/2009 Page 2 of 4 against this, the finding was that the petitioner/workman has himself abandoned the job on account of his transfer from Delhi to Noida. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the award. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was transferred from his place of posting at 42, New Wazirpur Industrial Complex, New Delhi-52 to their concern in Noida which was not a part of their terms and conditions of appointment, and therefore, his transfer and the non-joining at the new place of posting tantamounts to termination of the services of the petitioner. The petitioner had placed on record one sample appointment letter of his co-worker known as Servejeet Yadav issued by the respondent/management. Clause 4 of the appointment letter gave power to the respondent/management to put the services of an employee to the best interest of the respondent/management. The exact language of Clause-4 read as under: “That we reserve the right to put your services in any capacity other than mentioned above if we are satisfied that it is in the best interest of the factory of the nature of your duties.” WP(C) No.8715/2009 Page 3 of 4 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has placed reliance on case titled M/s Kundan Sugar Mills Vs. Ziyauddin & Ors. AIR 1960 SC 650. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The judgment which has been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the fact of the case. In the judgment relied upon the Supreme Court has held that in case an employee is transferred from one organization to another organization which was not in existence at the time of his initial appointment than such a transfer by the employer to the new concern is not implied by the conditions of the service. 5. In the case in hand neither the petitioner proved his appointment letter nor he has been able to establish that the concern to which he was sought to be transferred was not in existence at the time of his appointment. Both the concerns as a matter of fact belonged to the same management. Apart from this terms and conditions shown in the sample appointment letter also give power to the management to utilize the services of an employee in the best possible manner so as to suit their requirement. Since in the instant case the services of the petitioner were sought to be utilized by transferring him from Delhi to Noida where they failed to join, this tantamounts to WP(C) No.8715/2009 Page 4 of 4 abandonment of their employment. The learned Labour Court has also given a finding of a fact in this regard. 6. This Court though does not sit as a court of appeal but it does not find any perversity, illegality in the finding of the said fact handed down by the learned Labour Court, accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. May 04, 2009 V.K. SHALI, J. KP