1. Where a transfer order is passed for valid administrative reasons, the Courts/Tribunals are generally not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system or substitute their own views for that of the administration. Judicial interference is permissible only if the order is made in violation of any mandatory statutory provisions or is motivated by malafide intentions or ulterior motives.
2. In the absence of sufficient evidence to establish that a transfer was passed to punish an employee for trade union activities or was based on extraneous considerations, the striking of a balance between employer's rights and employee's interest requires deference to the administrative decision. Allegations of victimization are easily made but must be substantiated with documentary evidence of malafides.
3. An employee holding a transferable post has no vested right to claim a posting at a particular place. The employer is the best judge for the utility and suitability of an employee at a particular location. Office bearers of trade unions are not immune from transfer unless the specific transfer violates a statutory provision or a recognized settlement which the employer is bound to follow.
4. Under Section 33(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, an order appointing or disciplining a protected workman cannot be made without conciliation proceedings. The protective umbrella extends from the date the claim for protected status is made and conciliation proceedings commence. If a transfer order is passed prior to the initiation of such proceedings, the employee cannot claim the benefit of protection retrospectively unless the subsequent proceedings reflect the status attributable to the date of the transfer.
5. A trade union activist is expected to act as the voice of employees and cannot misuse his position to file multiple proceedings or call for strikes to pressure the employer and ensure personal transfer is set aside. Such multiplicity of litigation amounts to an abuse of the process of law and does not warrant judicial intervention in the merits of a bona fide transfer.
6. Where a transfer is carried out along with other employees for administrative purposes, it reinforces the finding that it is an administrative exigency rather than a prejudiced action against the individual.
