Holding

The termination order is valid, the transfer is not proved mala‑fide, and the Industrial Court lacks jurisdiction over the termination claim, which must be decided by the Labour Court.

Summary

Rajneesh Khajuria, a sales employee of Wockhardt Ltd., was transferred from Sagar to Mumbai and failed to report, after which his services were terminated. He filed a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 alleging that the transfer and termination were mala fide unfair labour practices. The Industrial Court held in his favour, but the High Court set aside that order. The Supreme Court examined whether the termination order could be deemed fake because the employee never received it, whether the transfer was proved mala fide without impleading the alleged decision‑maker, and whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the termination issue which falls under Item 1 of Schedule IV. The Court held that non‑receipt does not render a termination order fake, the transfer was not shown to be mala fide, and the Industrial Court lacks jurisdiction over termination matters that are within the Labour Court’s domain. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The termination order is invalid because the employee never received it.
The transfer constitutes an unfair labour practice under Items 3, 7, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV without impleading the alleged mala‑fide decision‑maker.
Whether malice in law can be inferred from the transfer.
The termination is ancillary to the transfer and thus within the Industrial Court’s jurisdiction under Section 32.
The correct forum for adjudicating termination under Item 1 of Schedule IV – Industrial Court or Labour Court.

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 2(s), s. 3(5), s. 6
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971s. 32, s. 7, s. Schedule IV

Subjects

unfair labour practicetransferterminationmala fidejurisdictionIndustrial CourtLabour Courtcommunication of orderSchedule IV

Judgment

[2020] 1 S.C.R. 1005 1005

RAJNEESH KHAJURIA A
v.
M/S. WOCKHARDT LTD. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 8989 of 2019)
JANUARY 15, 2020 B
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention
of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971:
s. 7 and Schedule IV Items 3, 7, 9 and 10 – Complaint by C
employee-workman – Against the employer Company and its General
Manager – Alleging that his transfer to Head-office of the employer-
company was unjust, unfair illegal, improper, arbitrary and mala
fide and amounted to unfair labour practices u/items 3, 7, 9 and 10
of Schedule IV – Plea of the employer interalia was that since the
D
service of the employee had already been terminated due to his not
joining at the transferred place, the employee not being in the
employment, complaint of unfair practices cannot be entertained –
Stand of the employee was that the termination order was not real,
existent or bonafide, as he never received the termination order –
Industrial Court decided in favour of the employee – High Court E
set aside the order of Industrial Court – Appeal to supreme Court –
Held: The termination order does not become fake or ingenuine,
just because the employee did not receive it – The act of transfer
can be unfair labour practice, if the transfer is actuated by malafide
– In the present case the employee has proved neither malice in fact
F
nor malice in law – The Industrial Court does not have jurisdiction
to examine the question of termination as a consequence of the
order of transfer because the unfair labour practices mentioned in
Item 1 of Schedule IV fall within the jurisdiction of Labour Court
and not Industrial Court – Jurisdiction.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court G

HELD: 1. The termination order is said to be fake, bogus
and not real or bona fide for the reason that the employee never
received any termination letter either by courier, UPC or by any

H
1005
1006 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.

A other mode of communication. The statement of the witness of
the employer is that the transfer order and termination letter are
true. He has identified the signatures of the authorised
representative on such documents as well. Therefore, it is not
possible to accept that the termination order is not in existence,
as the statement of the employer witness has not been challenged.
B
The only allegation is that the employee has not received the
termination letter. Therefore, the assertion that an order of
termination was not received by the employee is not relevant to
hold that the termination order was fake. The order was issued,
as deposed by the employer witness. Even if, the employee has
C managed not to receive the same, the termination order does
not become fake or ingenuine. Thus, the appellant is not entitled
to dispute the termination order as not real or bona fide for the
reason that it was not received by him. [Paras 12 and 13]
[1014-G-H; 1015-A; 1016-E-F]
D State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram (1969) 3 SCC 28 : [1970]
2 SCR 657 – relied on.
2.1 The act of transfer can be unfair labour practice if the
transfer is actuated by mala fide. The allegations of mala fide
have two facets – one malice in law and the other being malice in
E fact. The challenge to the transfer is based upon malice in fact as
it is an action taken by the employer. [Para 14][1016-G]
2.2 The allegation in the complaint is that the transfer was
actuated for the reason that the employee had raised voice against
removal of one of the employees from the venue of a Conference.
F The officers present in the said Conference were the Regional
Manager or Sales Manager, whereas order of transfer was passed
by General Manager-HR. It is an admitted fact that there is power
of transfer with the employer. The allegations are against the
persons present in the Conference but there is no allegation
against the person who has passed the order of transfer. None of
G the named persons including the person present in Conference
have been impleaded as parties to rebut such allegations. Since
the order of transfer is in terms of the letter of appointment,
therefore, the mere fact that the employee was transferred will
per se not make it mala fide. The allegations of mala fide are
H easier to levy than to prove. [Para 19][1021-E-G]
RAJNEESH KHAJURIA v. M/S. WOCKHARDT LTD. & ANR. 1007

2.3 The appellant has not laid any foundation to allege a A
malice in law. Malice in law would be something which is done
without lawful excuse or an act done wrongfully and willfully
without reasonable or probable cause. There is power of transfer
in the letter of appointment. If an employee is transferred after
20 years and that to the place of headquarters of a company, it
B
cannot be said that the act of transfer was done without lawful
excuse. No inference can be drawn that the act was done from ill
feeling or spite. [Para 21][1022-A-B]
2.4 Therefore, the allegation that the transfer of the
appellant was an act of unfair labour practice without impleading
the person who is said to have acted in a mala fide manner is not C
sustainable. [Para 20][1021-H]
State of Bihar & Anr. v. P.P. Sharma, IAS & Anr. (1992)
Supp (1) SCC 222 : [1991] 2 SCR 1; Prabodh Sagar v.
Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. (2000) 5 SCC
630 : [2000] 3 SCR 866; HMT Ltd. & Anr. v. Mudappa D
& Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 768 : [2007] 2 SCR 363; State of
A.P. & Ors. v. Goverdhanlal Pitti (2003) 4 SCC 739 :
[2003] 2 SCR 908; Union of India & Ors. v. Ashok
Kumar & Ors. (2005) 8 SCC 760 : [2005] 4 Suppl.
SCR 317 – relied on. E
Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited v. RDS
Projects Limited & Ors. (2013) 1 SCC 524 : [2012] 9
SCR 690 – referred to.
3. The jurisdiction of the Industrial Court is, inter alia, to
decide complaints relating to unfair labour practices except unfair F
labour practices falling under Item 1 of Schedule IV. The unfair
labour practices mentioned in Item 1 of Schedule IV fall within
the jurisdiction of the Labour Court—(Section 7). In view of the
specific provision that the complaint relating to unfair labour
practices described in Item 1 of Schedule IV fall within the G
jurisdiction of the Labour Court, the Industrial Court will not
have jurisdiction to examine the question of termination as a
consequence of the order of transfer. Since the statute creates a
forum for redressal of grievances in respect of termination of
services, it is the said forum alone which can be invoked for
redressal of grievances. The jurisdiction of a forum can be H
1008 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.

A invoked only in accordance with the statutory provisions.
Therefore, alleging termination as a consequence of non-joining
on the transferred post will not confer jurisdiction on the Industrial
Court. The dispute regarding termination as an act of victimization
falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court.
Consequently, the appellant has not made out any case for
B
interference against an order passed by the High Court in the
present appeal. Therefore, the Labour Court alone was competent
to decide the issue of alleged un-lawful termination of the
appellant. [Para 23][1022-E-H; 1023-A]
Case Law Reference
C
[1970] 2 SCR 657 relied on Para 12
[1991] 2 SCR 1 relied on Para 14
[2000] 3 SCR 866 relied on Para 15

D [2007] 2 SCR 363 relied on Para 16
[2003] 2 SCR 908 relied on Para 16
[2005] 4 Suppl. SCR 317 relied on Para 17
[2012] 9 SCR 690 referred to Para 18
E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8989
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.01.2014 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 10816 of 2013 and order
dated 27.11.2014 in Review Petition No. 106 of 2014 in Writ Petition
F No. 10816 of 2013.
Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv., Ms. Gwen Karthika, Ms. Abha
R. Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
J.P. Cama, Sr. Adv., Nitin S.Tambwekar, Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru,
Advs. for the Respondents.
G

H
RAJNEESH KHAJURIA v. M/S. WOCKHARDT LTD. & ANR. 1009

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay on 21st January, 2014 whereby the
writ petition filed by M/s. Wockhardt Ltd.1 was allowed and the order
passed by the Industrial Court on 6th August, 2012 was set aside. B

2. The High Court held that the transfer of the appellant2 was as
per the terms and conditions of employment. It was held that the employer
had to decide who should work at particular place and who was to be
transferred to another place in the interest of establishment. It was also
held that the employee had failed to challenge the termination order C
dated 15th April, 2005.
3. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are that the employee
was appointed on 6th June, 1985 as a Professional Service Representative
and was posted at Sagar, Madhya Pradesh. Thereafter, he was promoted
to Field Sales Officer Grade FM-One. One of the conditions in the letter D
of appointment was that the employer shall be entitled, at any time during
the course of employment, to transfer the employee to any of its affiliates,
subsidiaries or sister companies. The employee was transferred to
Mumbai on 21st March, 2005 with immediate effect. The employee did
not join duty at Mumbai; therefore, reminders were sent by the employer E
on 1st April, 2005 and 8th April, 2005. The service of the employee was
terminated on 15th April, 2005.
4. The employee along with National Federation of Sales
Representatives’ Union3 filed a complaint on 30th April, 2005 before the
Industrial Court, Maharashtra established under the Maharashtra F
Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices
Act, 19714. The allegation of the employee is that he had reasonable and
bona fide apprehension that the employer, after filing of the present
complaint, was going to take adverse actions such as mala fide transfers,
suspension, disciplinary actions, summary terminations etc. against N.P.
Mishra, Rajendra Khandelwal, Sandeep Mitra, Manoj Bhatt, Rajaram G
V. Baliga and Rajkumar Jasnani. The employee has alleged that the
1
for short, ‘employer’
2
for short, ‘employee’
3
for short, ‘Union’
4
for short, ‘Act’ H
1010 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.

A basis of apprehended action against the employees mentioned by him
was that they have filed affidavits in his favour against unfair labour
practices, high handed actions, atrocities etc. committed by employer
company and its employer on 15th March, 2005 during the Launching
Conference at Ahmedabad. The employee alleged that he was the
President of Sagar Unit of Madhya Pradesh Medical Representatives’
B
Association which is affiliated to complainant No. 1 i.e. the Union. The
employee also alleged that one Mr. Ashish Khare, an active member of
the Union was forced to resign from the employment of the employer
company in January, 2005 but the same was not accepted. He was paid
wages till February, 2005. He was invited for a Launching Conference
C but two managers of the employer company Deepak Sethi, Sales
Manager and Sanjay Anand, Regional Manager drove Mr. Ashish Khare
out of the hotel at night time. The employee had protested against the
same and it is on account of raising his voice against the said atrocities
and acts of force, the employee was threatened that he would be
transferred and his other colleagues would also be dealt with severely
D
by the employer. Soon after the Conference was over, the employee
was transferred on 21st March, 2005. Such transfer order was received
on 4th April, 2005. The employee alleged that his transfer was unjust,
unfair, illegal, improper, arbitrary and mala fide, amounting to unfair
labour practices under Item 3, 7, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act. It
E may be noticed at this stage that the complaint was filed against the
company and its General Manager (HR) in its official capacity. Relevant
assertion in the complaint reads as under:
“(iii) That the impugned transfer order does not mention any
business exigency and/or administrative reason/s and, in fact, there
F does not exist any business exigency and/or administrative reason/
s for suddenly transferring the Complainant No. 2 from Sagar
(Madhya Pradesh) to Mumbai (State of Maharashtra) because
there are sufficient number of Medical Representatives working
in Mumbai. Thus, there is no business exigency or administrative
reason for transferring the Complainant No. 2 from Sagar (Madhya
G Pradesh) to Mumbai (State of Maharashtra). The impugned
transfer of the Complainant No. 2 is, therefore, malafide transfer
and thereby the Respondents are engaging in the unfair labour
practices under Item 3 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P.
Act, 1971.”
H
RAJNEESH KHAJURIA v. M/S. WOCKHARDT LTD. & ANR. 1011
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

5. In the written statement filed by the employer, the status of the A
employee as a workman was denied as he was alleged to be working in
supervisory, managerial or administrative capacity and he was discharging
his duties as Territory Manager. The stand of the employer was that the
transfer was as per contract of employment signed between the parties
and that there is no mala fide in the order of transfer. It was also pleaded
B
that services of the employee stood terminated on 15th April, 2005 and
on the date of filing of the complaint, the employee was not in the
employment of the respondent employer, therefore, no complaint of unfair
labour practices can be entertained in law. It was also asserted that the
employee had failed to report for duties at the transferred place, therefore,
communications dated 1st April, 2005 and 8th April, 2005 were addressed C
to him to resume duties but the employee continued his defiant attitude
of not reporting for work at the transferred place and subsequently, his
services were terminated on 15th April, 2005. It was also pleaded that
the Industrial Court did not have any jurisdiction to return findings on the
issue of termination in a complaint filed under Item 3, 7, 9 and 10 of
D
Schedule IV of the Act. It was also pleaded that there was no Sagar
Unit of Madhya Pradesh Medical Representatives’ Association as per
the information of the employer. Further, it was pleaded that the resignation
of Mr. Ashish Khare was voluntary which was accepted and he was
relieved on 6th January, 2005. It was further pleaded that Mr. Khare
came to the Conference without an invitation in a clandestine manner. E
It was also stated that transfer of the employee was discussed by the
employer much prior to the actual issuance of the order of transfer. It
was also mentioned that the employee had failed to submit his expense
statements for the months of February and March, 2005 and, therefore,
it was not possible to make payments of salary to the employee.
F
6. The Industrial Court examined four issues. The first being
whether the employee was a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 read with Section 3(5) of the Act. The second issue
being whether the termination order dated 15th April, 2005 was real,
existent and bona fide. The third, whether the employer had indulged in
unfair labour practices under the Act. The last issue being whether the G
employee was entitled to the reliefs claimed.
7. In support of the complaint, the employee filed his affidavit in
evidence reiterating the version given by him in his complaint. However,
in respect of termination alleged by the employer, the employee stated to
the following effect: H
1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.

A “9. I say that the company had addressed me an E-Mail dated
14th April, 2005, inter alia asking me to report for work at Mumbai.
I say that a copy of the said E-Mail is filed by me along with my
Application dated April 14, 2005, with Application dated 27th July,
2006. I say that I have never received any termination letter dated
15.4.2005 either by courier or by UPC or by any other mode of
B
communication. I say that the purported letter of termination dated
15.4.2005 is not real, existent and bona fide. I say that it is fake
and bogus termination letter.”
8. The employee in his cross-examination, as a witness, conducted
on 4th June, 2009, admitted that there was no Union by the name Madhya
C Pradesh Medical and Sales Representatives’ Association.
9. Mr. Raj Kumar Chadha furnished his affidavit in evidence on
behalf of the employer. In cross-examination, he deposed that the
Employer communicated to the employee that he must report at the
reported place. Since the employee had failed to report on duty, his services
D stood terminated. Relevant extract of the cross-examination of the
witness of the employer is reproduced hereunder:
“With respect to his telegram claiming sick leave w.e.f. 02/04/
2005, I say he was communicated by the management that only if
he first reports at transferred place can it be considered, and hence
E was not granted. I say thereafter the services of Mr. Rajneesh
Jagannath Khajoria stood terminated vide company’s letter dated
15.4.2005. I say the transfer order and the termination letter
contents are true and I identify the signatures therein.”
10. With the said factual background, we find that the following
F questions arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the employee is entitled to dispute the termination
order dated 15th April, 2005 as not real or bona fide for the
reason that it was not received by him?
(ii) Whether the employee is entitled to dispute his transfer as
G
unfair labour practice in terms of Item 3 of Schedule IV of
the Act without impleading the person who is said to have
acted in a mala fide manner?
(iii) Whether the question of malice in law can be inferred in the
matter of transfer of an employee as unfair labour practice?
H
RAJNEESH KHAJURIA v. M/S. WOCKHARDT LTD. & ANR. 1013
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

(iv) Whether the order of termination is ancillary to the order of A
transfer which confers jurisdiction on the Industrial Court to
exercise jurisdiction in the matter arising out of allegation of
unfair labour practice?
11. Before we proceed further, relevant statutory provisions from
the Act need to be reproduced hereunder: B
“3 (8) “Industrial Court” means an Industrial Court constituted
under section 4;
xx xx xx
3 (10) “Labour Court” means a Labour Court constituted under C
Section 6;
xx xx xx
5. Duties of Industrial Court
(a) xx xx xx
D
(b) xx xx xx
(c) xx xx xx
(d) to decide complaints relating to unfair labour practices excepts
unfair labour practices falling in Item 1 of Schedule IV;
E
xx xx xx
7. Duties of Labour Court – It shall be the duty of the Labour
Court to decide complaints relating to unfair labour practices
described in Item 1 of Schedule IV and to try offences punishable
under this Act. F
xx xx xx
26. Unfair labour practices:- In this Act, unless the context requires
otherwise, ‘unfair labour practices’ mean any of the practices
listed in Schedules II, III and IV.
27. Prohibition on engaging in unfair labour practices:- No employer G
or union and no employees shall engage in any unfair labour
practice.
xx xx xx

H
1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.

A 32. Power of Court to decide all connected matters:-
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Court shall
have the power to decide all matters arising out of any application
or a complaint referred to it for the decision under any of the
provisions of this Act.
B xx xx xx
Schedule IV – General Unfair Labour Practices on the part of
employers
1. To discharge or dismiss employees –

C (a) by way of victimisation;
(b) not in good faith, but in colourable exercise of employer’s
rights;
(c) by falsely implicating an employee in a criminal case on false
evidence or on concocted evidence;
D
(d) for patently false reasons;
(e) on untrue or trumped up allegation of absence without leave;
(f) in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice in the
conduct of domestic enquiry or with undue haste;
E (g) for misconduct of a minor or technical character, without hav-
ing any regard to the nature of the particular misconduct or
the past record of service of the employee, so as to amount
to a shockingly disproportionate punishment.
2. xx xx xx
F
3. To transfer an employee mala fide from one place to another,
under the guise of following management policy.”
12. The termination order is said to be fake, bogus and not real or
bona fide for the reason that the employee never received any termination
letter either by courier, UPC or by any other mode of communication.
G
The statement of the witness of the employer is that the transfer order
and termination letter are true. He has identified the signatures of the
authorised representative on such documents as well. Therefore, it is
not possible to accept the argument that the termination order is not in
existence as the statement of the employer witness has not been
H challenged. The only allegation is that the employee has not received the
RAJNEESH KHAJURIA v. M/S. WOCKHARDT LTD. & ANR. 1015
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

termination letter. This Court in a judgment reported as State of Punjab A
v. Khemi Ram5 held that once the order is issued and sent out to the
concerned government servant, it must be held to have been
communicated to him, no matter when he actually received it. This Court
held as under:
“17. The question then is whether communicating the order means B
its actual receipt by the concerned government servant. The order
of suspension in question was published in the Gazette though
that was after the date when the respondent was to retire. But
the point is whether it was communicated to him before that date.
The ordinary meaning of the word “communicate” is to impart,
confer or transmit information. (Cf. Shorter Oxford English C
Dictionary, Vol. 1, p. 352). As already stated, telegrams, dated
July 31, and August 2, 1958, were despatched to the respondent
at the address given by him where communications by Government
should be despatched. Both the telegrams transmitted or imparted
information to the respondent that he was suspended from service D
with effect from August 2, 1958. It may be that he actually received
them in or about the middle of August 1958, after the date of his
retirement. But how can it be said that the information about his
having been suspended was not imparted or transmitted to him on
July 31 and August 2, 1958 i.e. before August 4, 1958, when he
would have retired? It will be seen that in all the decisions E
cited before us it was the communication of the impugned
order which was held to be essential and not its actual receipt
by the officer concerned and such communication was held
to be necessary because till the order is issued and actually
sent out to the person concerned the authority making such F
order would be in a position to change its mind and modify it
if it thought fit. But once such an order is sent out, it goes out
of the control of such an authority, and therefore, there would
be no chance whatsoever of its changing its mind or modifying
it. In our view, once an order is issued and it is sent out to the
concerned government servant, it must be held to have been G
communicated to him, no matter when he actually received
it.We find it difficult to persuade ourselves to accept the view
that it is only from the date of the actual receipt by him that

5
(1969) 3 SCC 28 H
1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.

A the order becomes effective. If that be the true meaning of
communication, it would be possible for a government servant
to effectively thwart an order by avoiding receipt of it by one
method or the other till after the date of his retirement even
though such an order is passed and despatched to him before
such date.An officer against whom action is sought to be taken,
B
thus, may go away from the address given by him for service
of such orders or may deliberately give a wrong address and
thus prevent or delay its receipt and be able to defeat its service
on him. Such a meaning of the word “communication” ought not
to be given unless the provision in question expressly so provides.
C Actual knowledge by him of an order where it is one of dismissal,
may, perhaps, become necessary because of the consequences
which the decision in The State of Punjab v. Amar Singh
contemplates. But such consequences would not occur in the case
of an officer who has proceeded on leave and against whom an
order of suspension is passed because in his case there is no
D
question of his doing any act or passing any order and such act or
order being challenged as invalid.” (Emphasis supplied)
13. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the assertion that an order
of termination was not received by the employee is not relevant to hold
that the termination order was fake. The order was issued, as deposed
E by the employer witness. Even if, the employee has managed not to
receive the same, the termination order does not become fake or
ingenuine. Therefore, the finding of the Industrial Court on question No.
2 was rightly set aside by the High Court. We affirm the order of the
High Court but on the ground other than which weighed with it. Thus,
F we find that the appellant is not entitled to dispute the termination order
as not real or bona fide for the reason that it was not received by him.
14. The act of transfer can be unfair labour practice if the transfer
is actuated by mala fide. The allegations of mala fide have two facets
– one malice in law and the other being malice in fact. The challenge to
G the transfer is based upon malice in fact as it is an action taken by the
employer on account of two officers present in Conference. In a judgment
reported as State of Bihar & Anr. v. P.P. Sharma, IAS & Anr.6, this
Court held that mala fide means want of good faith, personal bias, grudge,
oblique or improper motive or ulterior purpose. The plea of mala fide
6
H 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222
RAJNEESH KHAJURIA v. M/S. WOCKHARDT LTD. & ANR. 1017
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

involves two questions, namely (i) whether there is a personal bias or an A
oblique motive, and (ii) whether the administrative action is contrary to
the objects, requirements and conditions of a valid exercise of
administrative power. As far as second aspect is concerned, there is a
power of transfer vested in the employer in terms of letter of appointment.
Even in terms of the provisions of the Act, the transfer by itself cannot
B
be said to be an act of unfair labour practice unless it is actuated by mala
fide. Therefore, to sustain a plea of mala fide, there has to be an element
of personal bias or an oblique motive. This Court held as under:
“50. Mala fides means want of good faith, personal bias, grudge,
oblique or improper motive or ulterior purpose. The administrative
action must be said to be done in good faith, if it is in fact done C
honestly, whether it is done negligently or not. An act done honestly
is deemed to have been done in good faith. An administrative
authority must, therefore, act in a bona fide manner and should
never act for an improper motive or ulterior purposes or contrary
to the requirements of the statute, or the basis of the circumstances D
contemplated by law, or improperly exercised discretion to achieve
some ulterior purpose. The determination of a plea of mala fide
involves two questions, namely (i) whether there is a personal
bias or an oblique motive, and (ii) whether the administrative action
is contrary to the objects, requirements and conditions of a valid
exercise of administrative power. E

51. The action taken must, therefore, be proved to have been
made mala fide for such considerations. Mere assertion or a vague
or bald statement is not sufficient. It must be demonstrated either
by admitted or proved facts and circumstances obtainable in a
given case. If it is established that the action has been taken mala F
fide for any such considerations or by fraud on power or colourable
exercise of power, it cannot be allowed to stand.
xx xx xx
59. Malice in law could be inferred from doing of wrongful act G
intentionally without any just cause or excuse or without there
being reasonable relation to the purpose of the exercise of statutory
power. Malice in law is not established from the omission to
consider some documents said to be relevant to the accused. Equally
reporting the commission of a crime to the Station House Officer,
H
1018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.

A cannot be held to be a colourable exercise of power with bad
faith or fraud on power. It may be honest and bona fide exercise
of power. There are no grounds made out or shown to us that the
first information report was not lodged in good faith. State of
Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : JT 1990
(4) SC 650] is an authority for the proposition that existence of
B
deep seated political vendetta is not a ground to quash the FIR.
Therein despite the attempt by the respondent to prove by affidavit
evidence corroborated by documents of the mala fides and even
on facts as alleged no offence was committed, this Court declined
to go into those allegations and relegated the dispute for
C investigation. Unhesitatingly I hold that the findings of the High
Court that FIR gets vitiated by the mala fides of the Administrator
and the charge-sheets are the results of the mala fides of the
informant or investigator, to say the least, is fantastic and obvious
gross error of law.”
D 15. In another judgment reported as Prabodh Sagar v. Punjab
State Electricity Board & Ors.7, it was held by this Court that the mere
use of the expression “mala fide” would not by itself make the petition
entertainable. The Court held as under:
“13. … Incidentally, be it noted that the expression “mala fide” is
E not meaningless jargon and it has its proper connotation. Malice
or mala fides can only be appreciated from the records of the
case in the facts of each case. There cannot possibly be any set
guidelines in regard to the proof of mala fides. Mala fides, where
it is alleged, depends upon its own facts and circumstances. We
ourselves feel it expedient to record that the petitioner has become
F more of a liability than an asset and in the event of there being
such a situation vis-à-vis an employee, the employer will be within
his liberty to take appropriate steps including the cessation of
relationship between the employer and the employee. The service
conditions of the Board’s employees also provide for voluntary
G (sic compulsory) retirement, a person of the nature of the petitioner,
as more fully detailed hereinbefore, cannot possibly be given any
redress against the order of the Board for voluntary retirement.
There must be factual support pertaining to the allegations of mala
fides, unfortunately there is none. Mere user of the word “mala
7
H (2000) 5 SCC 630
RAJNEESH KHAJURIA v. M/S. WOCKHARDT LTD. & ANR. 1019
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

fide” by the petitioner would not by itself make the petition A
entertainable. The Court must scan the factual aspect and come
to its own conclusion i.e. exactly what the High Court has done
and that is the reason why the narration has been noted in this
judgment in extenso. …”
16. In a judgment reported as HMT Ltd. & Anr. v. Mudappa & B
Ors.8, quoting from earlier judgment of this Court reported as State of
A.P. & Ors. v. Goverdhanlal Pitti9, it was held that ‘legal malice’ or
‘malice in law’ means ‘something done without lawful excuse’. It is an
act done wrongfully and willfully without reasonable or probable cause,
and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite. The Court
held as under: C

“24. The Court also explained the concept of legal mala fide. By
referring to Words and Phrases Legally Defined, 3rd Edn.,
London Butterworths, 1989 the Court stated: (Goverdhanlal case
[(2003) 4 SCC 739], SCC p. 744, para 12)
D
“12. The legal meaning of malice is ‘ill will or spite towards a
party and any indirect or improper motive in taking an action’.
This is sometimes described as ‘malice in fact’. ‘Legal malice’
or ‘malice in law’ means ‘something done without lawful
excuse’. In other words, ‘it is an act done wrongfully and wilfully
without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an E
act done from ill feeling and spite. It is a deliberate act in
disregard of the rights of others.’ “
It was observed that where malice was attributed to the State, it
could not be a case of malice in fact, or personal ill-will or spite on
the part of the State. It could only be malice in law i.e. legal mala F
fide. The State, if it wishes to acquire land, could exercise its
power bona fide for statutory purpose and for none other. It was
observed that it was only because of the decree passed in favour
of the owner that the proceedings for acquisition were necessary
and hence, notification was issued. Such an action could not be G
held mala fide.”
17. In a judgment reported as Union of India & Ors. v. Ashok
Kumar & Ors.10, it has been held that allegations of mala fidesare often
8
(2007) 9 SCC 768
9
(2003) 4 SCC 739
10
H
(2005) 8 SCC 760
1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.

A more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such
allegations demands proof of a high order of credibility. The Court held
as under:
“21. Doubtless, he who seeks to invalidate or nullify any act or
order must establish the charge of bad faith, an abuse or a misuse
B by the authority of its powers. While the indirect motive or purpose,
or bad faith or personal ill will is not to be held established except
on clear proof thereof, it is obviously difficult to establish the state
of a man’s mind, for that is what the employee has to establish in
this case, though this may sometimes be done. The difficulty is
not lessened when one has to establish that a person apparently
C acting on the legitimate exercise of power has, in fact, been acting
mala fide in the sense of pursuing an illegitimate aim. It is not the
law that mala fides in the sense of improper motive should be
established only by direct evidence. But it must be discernible
from the order impugned or must be shown from the established
D surrounding factors which preceded the order. If bad faith would
vitiate the order, the same can, in our opinion, be deduced as a
reasonable and inescapable inference from proved facts. (S.
Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab [(1964) 4 SCR 733 : AIR 1964
SC 72] .) It cannot be overlooked that the burden of establishing
mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The
E allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved,
and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a
high order of credibility. As noted by this Court in E.P. Royappa
v. State of T.N. [(1974) 4 SCC 3 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 165 : AIR
1974 SC 555] courts would be slow to draw dubious inferences
F from incomplete facts placed before them by a party, particularly
when the imputations are grave and they are made against the
holder of an office which has a high responsibility in the
administration. (See Indian Rly. Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay
Kumar [(2003) 4 SCC 579 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 528] .)”
G 18. In another judgment reported as Ratnagiri Gas and Power
Private Limited v. RDS Projects Limited & Ors.11, this Court held
that when allegations of mala fides are made, the persons against whom
the same are levelled need to be impleaded as parties to the proceedings
to enable them to answer the charge. A judicial pronouncement declaring
11
H (2013) 1 SCC 524
RAJNEESH KHAJURIA v. M/S. WOCKHARDT LTD. & ANR. 1021
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

an action to be mala fide is a serious indictment of the person concerned A
that can lead to adverse civil consequences against him. The Court held
as under:
“27. There is yet another aspect which cannot be ignored. As and
when allegations of mala fides are made, the persons against whom
the same are levelled need to be impleaded as parties to the B
proceedings to enable them to answer the charge. In the absence
of the person concerned as a party in his/her individual capacity it
will neither be fair nor proper to record a finding that malice in
fact had vitiated the action taken by the authority concerned. It is
important to remember that a judicial pronouncement declaring
an action to be mala fide is a serious indictment of the person C
concerned that can lead to adverse civil consequences against
him. Courts have, therefore, to be slow in drawing conclusions
when it comes to holding allegations of mala fides to be proved
and only in cases where based on the material placed before the
Court or facts that are admitted leading to inevitable inferences D
supporting the charge of mala fides that the Court should record a
finding in the process ensuring that while it does so, it also hears
the person who was likely to be affected by such a finding.”
19. The allegation in the complaint is that the transfer was actuated
for the reason that the employee had raised voice against removal of E
Shri Khare from the venue of a Conference. The officers present in the
said Conference were the Regional Manager or Sales Manager, whereas
order of transfer was passed by Mr. Suresh Srinivasan, General Manager-
HR. It is an admitted fact that there is power of transfer with the
employer. The allegations are against the persons present in the
Conference but there is no allegation against the person who has passed F
the order of transfer. None of the named persons including the person
present in Conference have been impleaded as parties to rebut such
allegations. Since the order of transfer is in terms of the letter of
appointment, therefore, the mere fact that the employee was transferred
will per se not make it mala fide. The allegations of mala fide are easier G
to levy than to prove.
20. Therefore, the allegation that the transfer of the appellant
was an act of unfair labour practice without impleading the person who
is said to have acted in a mala fide manner is not sustainable.
H
1022 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.

A 21. We do not find that the appellant has laid any foundation to
allege a malice in law. As mentioned in the judgments referred to above,
malice in law would be something which is done without lawful excuse
or an act done wrongfully and willfully without reasonable or probable
cause. There is power of transfer in the letter of appointment. The
appellant has stayed at Sagar for almost 20 years. If an employee is
B
transferred after 20 years and that to the place of headquarters of a
company, it cannot be said that the act of transfer was done without
lawful excuse. No inference can be drawn that an act was done from ill
feeling or spite.
22. The next question which was vehemently argued by Mr.
C Cama, learned senior counsel for the employer was that the order of
termination can be disputed only before the Labour Court in terms of
Section 7 of the Act read with Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act and not
before the Industrial Court. Learned counsel for the appellant argued
that the termination was ancillary to the order of transfer or a
D consequence of not joining the transferred station. Therefore, in terms
of Section 32 of the Act, there need not be any separate challenge to the
termination as such termination is a consequence of transfer and, thus,
will fall within the scope of Section 32 of the Act.
23. We do not find any merit in the arguments raised by the learned
E counsel for the appellant. The jurisdiction of the Industrial Court is, inter
alia,to decide complaints relating to unfair labour practices except unfair
labour practices falling under Item 1 of Schedule IV. The unfair labour
practices mentioned in Item 1 of Schedule IV fall within the jurisdiction
of the Labour Court (See Section 7). In view of the specific provision
that the complaint relating to unfair labour practices described in Item 1
F of Schedule IV fall within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, therefore,
the Industrial Court will not have jurisdiction to examine the question of
termination as a consequence of the order of transfer. Since the statute
creates a forum for redressal of grievances in respect of termination of
services, it is the said forum alone which can be invoked for redressal of
G grievances. The jurisdiction of a forum can be invoked only in accordance
with the statutory provisions. Therefore, alleging termination as a
consequence of non-joining on the transferred post will not confer
jurisdiction on the Industrial Court. The dispute regarding termination as
act of victimization falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Labour
Court. Consequently, we do not find that the appellant has made out any
H
RAJNEESH KHAJURIA v. M/S. WOCKHARDT LTD. & ANR. 1023
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

case for interference against an order passed by the High Court in the A
present appeal. Therefore, the Labour Court alone was competent to
decide the issue of alleged un-lawful termination of the appellant.
24. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present
appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
B

Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal dismissed.

C

D

E

F

G

H