Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010115102019 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) 3436/2019 Asimal Sadat Usmani S/O Sad Uddin, R/O Vill. Katanpur, P.O. Kotamoni Dist.-Karimganj (Assam) ..…...Petitioner -Versus- The State of Assam Rep. by the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-6 2: The Labour Commissioner Assam, Gopinath Nagar, Guwahati-16. 3:The Deputy Secretary To the Govt. of Assam, Labour Welfare Deptt. 4:The Managing Director Dainik Jugasankha 13 Green Path G.S. Road, Guwahati-7, Assam. ....…Respondents. B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA For the petitioner : Mr. F.Z. Mazumdar. For the respondents : Ms. U. Das. Date of hearing & judgment : 10.06.2025 Page No.# 2/6 Judgement & Order Heard Mr. F. Z. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. U. Das, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. No one appears for the respondent No.4. 2. The petitioner had put to challenge the Award dated 22.02.2019 passed by the learned Labour Court, Guwahati in Reference Case No. 10/2017, which has dismissed the petitioner’s challenge to his transfer order dated 15.10.2016 to Tinsukia, which is as follows:- “Sub: Transfer Dear Sir, In view of the decision of the management to improve the content of Dibrugarh edition of Dainik Jugasankha, it is felt necessary to have good reporting hand in Tinsukia, the head quarter of Tinsukia District, under the Dibrugarh edition Circulation area. In the interest of the edition and the company, you are hereby transferred to Tinsukia and you are advised to start reporting from Tinsukia from 24th October. 2016 You are released from Guwahati desk with immediate effect and you may submit a compliance report to the undersigned upon initiating your assignment noted above by 25th October, 2016 With best wishes for the new assignment.” 3. The petitioner’s case is that he was appointed verbally as a Sub-Editor in the Guwahati Desk Dainik Jugasankha in the year 2011 and on 15.10.2016, the Management transferred the petitioner to Tinsukia as a Field Reporter. 4. The petitioner’s grievance against the impugned transfer order dated 15.10.2016 was that it changed the nature of the job of the petitioner, inasmuch as, the work of a Sub-Editor and the work of a Field Reporter was different. Page No.# 3/6 5. The petitioner submitted his grievance before the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and a conciliation proceeding was initiated, which was not attended by the respondent No. 4. As the conciliation attempt failed, the Conciliation Officer sent a report to the appropriate Government stating that settlement could not be arrived. Thereafter, the Government referred the matter to the learned Labour Court with the following issues to be decided:- “(1) Whether the management of M/S dainik Jugasankha, was justified in transferring the petitioner, sub-editor of Dainik Jugasankha to Tinsukia in a new post as field correspondence. (ii) Whether the management of Dainik Jugasankha was justified in holding back the petitioners salary for leave period since October 24th 2016.” 6. The learned Labour Court thereafter passed the impugned Award dated 22.02.2019 in Reference Case No. 10/2017, by holding that the transfer of the petitioner, to Tinsukia as a Sub-Editor from Guwahati Desk by the Management, did not fall under the purview of Section 2(k) of the Act and as the same did not directly or substantially affect the interest of the petitioner, the transfer was incidental to employment and there was no ill motive and it was not punitive. As it found no illegality in the transfer of the petitioner, the learned Labour Court came to a finding that the dispute did not fall under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also decided the two issues referred to it in its impugned Award dated 22.02.2019 as follows:- “Issue No. (1) Since the transfer of Asimal Sadat Usmani without changes of nature of work or anything affecting his services, therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the management. Page No.# 4/6 Issue No. (2) It has been deposed by the workman that he is claiming salary with other benefit such as wage, arrear, gratuity, earn leave etc.” “He deposes that he is illegally transferred and be allowed to join as Sub-Editor in Guwahati desk of Dalnik Jugasankha and is also entitled to get his pending salary from the date of transfer order. But, from his deposition that he did not join either at Tinsukia or at Guwahati. Therefore, the principle of no work- no pay is well applicable in this case. Therefore, the plea of pending salary cannot be awarded.” 7. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the impugned Award should be set aside, as the transfer has adversely affected the petitioner’s service condition, as he was working as a Sub-Editor in Guwahati and his transfer to Tinsukia would be that of a Field Reporter. 8. As there would be a change in the service condition of the petitioner due to his transfer, the same amounted to an industrial dispute and would come within the provisions of Section 2(k) of the Act. 9. Ms. U. Das, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that the transfer order of the petitioner does not state anywhere that the petitioner has been transferred as a Field Reporter to Tinsukia. Further, the written statement of the Management/respondent No. 4 before the learned Labour Court, is to the effect that they have denied that the petitioner was transferred as a Correspondent to Tinsukia. The Management has categorically stated that it has not changed the status of the petitioner and that he was transferred to Tinsukia as a Sub-Editor and not as a Correspondent. As such, there was no change in the service condition of the petitioner, as has been alleged by the petitioner. 10. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. Page No.# 5/6 11. A perusal of the impugned transfer order dated 15.10.2016 nowhere states that the petitioner is going to be transferred as a Field Reporter/Correspondent to Tinsukia. Further, the extract of the written statement made on behalf of the respondent No. 4 before the learned Labour Court in para 4 is reproduced hereinbelow as follows:- “4. That the statements made in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the written statement of the workman are incorrect and hence denied by the management. It is denied that the management illegally and arbitrarily issued the transfer order dated 14.10.2016 to the workman, as has been alleged. It is further denied that the management transferred the workman as a correspondent, by violating the provisions of the existing law. A perusal of the order of transfer dated 15.10.2016 clearly goes to show that the order of transfer was issued in the interest of the newspaper and to improve the content of the Dibrugarh Edition of the Dainik Jugasangha and to have a good reporting hand in Tinsukia. The allegation that the workman was transferred as a "Correspondent" is an incorrect statement made with the sole intention of misleading this Hon'ble Court inasmuch as, the order dated 15.10.2016 nowhere says that the workman was transferred as a Correspondent. It is categorically denied that the workman was transferred as a Correspondent and that there has been a change in the nature of the job, as has been alleged. The management has not changed the status of the workman and he was transferred to Tinsukia as a Sub-Editor and not as a Correspondent. Therefore, no comments are necessary with regard to the functions of a Sub-Editor or a Correspondent. The nature of the job of the workman had not been changed by the issuance of the transfer order and at the time of joining the services of the newspaper, there was no assurance given to the workman that he would be all along be stationed at Guwahati. While entering into the job the workman was well aware that the newspaper has various editions from the various parts of the State and therefore the management is well within its rights to transfer its employees from one unit to the other, if deemed fit by the management, in the interest of the newspaper. Therefore, there is no violation of the employment agreement, as has been alleged. The question of violation of the principles of natural justice does not arise in the instant case, inasmuch as, no adverse order had been passed against the workman and transfer being an incidence of service, it is the sole domain of the management and the workman cannot dictate to the management as to where he or she should be posted.” 12. On going through the stand taken by the respondent No. 4 in their written statement, it clearly shows that there was no change in the service condition of the petitioner, by way of the impugned transfer order. Further, on a query raised Page No.# 6/6 by this Court to the petitioner’s counsel, the petitioner’s counsel has admitted to the fact that there was no written service condition given to the petitioner, which would govern his service condition. 13. Keeping in view all the facts of this case, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned Award dated 22.02.2019 passed in Reference Case No. 10/2017 by the learned Labour Court, Guwahati. 14. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant