Hello, I work in a private company for 24 years and I am a permanent employee there. However, on 7/7/2020, I was called by the head authorities and verbally asked to go to another state production plant, which I verbally rejected. I was given time until 15/7/2020. On 14/7/2020, the general manager called me to state my acceptance or rejection of the transfer offer, and I verbally rejected the offer. Nevertheless, on 17/7/2020, I was handed a termination letter citing my failure to respond to the transfer offer.
Before leaving, I wrote a letter to the authorities asking them to consider the termination letter as a potential communication error, but they refused to address the issue. Subsequently, on 18/07/2020, I sent them a legal notice regarding their conduct. They replied on 30/7/2020, disagreeing with any wrongdoing and rejecting my request to retain my job, particularly in the current pandemic situation. Moreover, my appointment letter from 1996 does not contain any clause regarding transferable job assignments.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
Before leaving, I wrote a letter to the authorities asking them to consider the termination letter as a potential communication error, but they refused to address the issue. Subsequently, on 18/07/2020, I sent them a legal notice regarding their conduct. They replied on 30/7/2020, disagreeing with any wrongdoing and rejecting my request to retain my job, particularly in the current pandemic situation. Moreover, my appointment letter from 1996 does not contain any clause regarding transferable job assignments.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Transfer as an Incidence of Service
It is a universally accepted principle in the realm of employment that transfer is an incidence of service, and the employer has the prerogative to decide who among their employees works where and for how long in the interest of the organization, without adversely affecting the terms and conditions of the existing contract of employment. The Indian Judiciary has held time and again that any personal inconvenience caused to an employee in this regard cannot be a valid reason against their transfer.
Questioning Transfer Orders
At the same time, an order of transfer can be questioned if it contravenes service regulations or is a measure of victimization. Hence, the refusal to obey the lawful orders of transfer by an employee can be treated as misconduct of insubordination and may be subject to formal disciplinary proceedings, potentially leading to the termination of the employee's services. This represents the legal position.
Principle of Natural Justice in Disciplinary Proceedings
Strict adherence to the Principle of Natural Justice is the undercurrent of any disciplinary proceedings, and any departure, deviation, or failure in this regard can nullify the entire action of the employer. Unfortunately, like many other questioners, the individual has omitted to mention their employment capacity. However, if the summary termination is due to a lack of response, it may not withstand judicial scrutiny.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
6108It is a universally accepted principle in the realm of employment that transfer is an incidence of service, and the employer has the prerogative to decide who among their employees works where and for how long in the interest of the organization, without adversely affecting the terms and conditions of the existing contract of employment. The Indian Judiciary has held time and again that any personal inconvenience caused to an employee in this regard cannot be a valid reason against their transfer.
Questioning Transfer Orders
At the same time, an order of transfer can be questioned if it contravenes service regulations or is a measure of victimization. Hence, the refusal to obey the lawful orders of transfer by an employee can be treated as misconduct of insubordination and may be subject to formal disciplinary proceedings, potentially leading to the termination of the employee's services. This represents the legal position.
Principle of Natural Justice in Disciplinary Proceedings
Strict adherence to the Principle of Natural Justice is the undercurrent of any disciplinary proceedings, and any departure, deviation, or failure in this regard can nullify the entire action of the employer. Unfortunately, like many other questioners, the individual has omitted to mention their employment capacity. However, if the summary termination is due to a lack of response, it may not withstand judicial scrutiny.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Employee Termination During Lockdown
It seems to me from the post of the querist that he falls under the 'workmen' category. This is my guess; otherwise, he would have stated that he was a manager or a supervisor. He mentioned that he was a permanent employee.
The querist is requested to make a personal and humble request to the higher authority of the company to reconsider the termination by explaining the reason for not accepting the transfer. I fully agree with Umakanthan Sir's statement that personal inconvenience, if any, caused to an employee in this regard cannot be a valid reason against his transfer. However, he can still try his luck. If he accepts the transfer, probably the termination will be set aside.
The querist has to initiate legal proceedings against the employer for terminating his services without following due process of law. This termination occurred during the lockdown, which is still in operation. The lockdown is not completely lifted in our country. Under these circumstances, the querist can approach the following authorities regarding his termination:
1. Nodal officer at the level of the Ministry to deal with "Employee Grievances with respect to COVID-19, GOI" at [Email Removed For Privacy Reasons]
2. Concerned Labour Commissioner.
The querist is advised to engage a good advocate. It seems to me the querist is from Mumbai. If so, I can help him out. He can have email communication with me.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It seems to me from the post of the querist that he falls under the 'workmen' category. This is my guess; otherwise, he would have stated that he was a manager or a supervisor. He mentioned that he was a permanent employee.
The querist is requested to make a personal and humble request to the higher authority of the company to reconsider the termination by explaining the reason for not accepting the transfer. I fully agree with Umakanthan Sir's statement that personal inconvenience, if any, caused to an employee in this regard cannot be a valid reason against his transfer. However, he can still try his luck. If he accepts the transfer, probably the termination will be set aside.
The querist has to initiate legal proceedings against the employer for terminating his services without following due process of law. This termination occurred during the lockdown, which is still in operation. The lockdown is not completely lifted in our country. Under these circumstances, the querist can approach the following authorities regarding his termination:
1. Nodal officer at the level of the Ministry to deal with "Employee Grievances with respect to COVID-19, GOI" at [Email Removed For Privacy Reasons]
2. Concerned Labour Commissioner.
The querist is advised to engage a good advocate. It seems to me the querist is from Mumbai. If so, I can help him out. He can have email communication with me.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Unfair Termination and Next Steps
The termination of your service has been hasty, to say the least. The stated reason, i.e., not replying to the transfer offer, cannot be viewed as misconduct and is grossly disproportionate. In this context, the termination of a permanent employee with 24 years of previous service is unfair and improper.
To begin with, you should raise a dispute if you are a workman. Otherwise, you can also challenge the action and seek compensation.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The termination of your service has been hasty, to say the least. The stated reason, i.e., not replying to the transfer offer, cannot be viewed as misconduct and is grossly disproportionate. In this context, the termination of a permanent employee with 24 years of previous service is unfair and improper.
To begin with, you should raise a dispute if you are a workman. Otherwise, you can also challenge the action and seek compensation.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear colleague, it is not known whether you fall under the 'Workman' category which entitles you to the benefits of labor laws. Assuming you are a workman, the legal position on your termination is very well brought out by Shri Umakanthan. Just as the employer has the inherent right to transfer any employee to any location for bona fide reasons, it is also incumbent on his part to follow the proper disciplinary procedure prior to termination. In your case, it was wrong on your part to outright refuse the transfer without giving valid reasons in writing.
Similarly, the employer's action of terminating an employee after his twenty-four years of permanent service in violation of legal procedures appears illegal on the face of it. You may raise a dispute after consulting a competent labor lawyer.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar HR and Employee Relations Consultant
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Similarly, the employer's action of terminating an employee after his twenty-four years of permanent service in violation of legal procedures appears illegal on the face of it. You may raise a dispute after consulting a competent labor lawyer.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar HR and Employee Relations Consultant
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I am overwhelmed by your response, members.
While handing over the termination letter, I was given a month's lieu notice salary, and they credited it to my account. They also stated that they would settle my gratuity amount.
However, after listening to all of you, I consulted a labor advocate, and she suggested I file a case. The employer has directly terminated me with vague reasons. During her conversation with the employer via email, she asked them to take me back on the job, mentioning the difficulty of finding a job during the COVID-19 period. They rejected this, stating that the company is facing losses, and the termination process followed is in accordance with the rules and regulations.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
While handing over the termination letter, I was given a month's lieu notice salary, and they credited it to my account. They also stated that they would settle my gratuity amount.
However, after listening to all of you, I consulted a labor advocate, and she suggested I file a case. The employer has directly terminated me with vague reasons. During her conversation with the employer via email, she asked them to take me back on the job, mentioning the difficulty of finding a job during the COVID-19 period. They rejected this, stating that the company is facing losses, and the termination process followed is in accordance with the rules and regulations.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Legal Clarification on Non-Performer Termination, Project Based Appointment Letter, Setting UP .pdf