JUDGMENT : 1. Heard at length learned advocate for the petitioner and learned advocate for the respondent. 2. Learned advocate for the petitioner has concluded his prolonged submission. Mr. Desai, learned advocate for the respondent also completed his submission. 3. The original claimant before learned Labour Court has taken out this petition against award dated 21.7.2014 passed by learned Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No. 34 of 2008 whereby the learned Labour Court, Rajkot rejected the reference. 4. On account of paucity of time, further dictation of the present order is deferred till tomorrow i.e. 09.02.2018. Further dictation shall commence at 11.00 a.m. on 09.02.2018. 9.2.2018 5. So far as factual background involved in present petition is concerned it has emerged from the award and from the record of the petition and from the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioner that feeling aggrieved by order under which the service of the petitioner came to be transferred from Rajkot to Gandhidham, present petitioner raised industrial dispute. 5.1 Appropriate government referred the dispute for adjudication to learned Labour Court at Rajkot. The said dispute came to be registered as Reference LCR No. 34 of 2008. 5.2 In the said order of reference the claimant filed his statement of claim wherein he claimed and alleged that he came to be employed with the opponent w.e.f. 3.2.2006 on monthly salary at Rs.4469/- as Assistant (operation). The claimant further alleged that on 12.2.2008 the opponent company terminated his service without following any procedure prescribed by law and in violation of principles of natural justice. The claimant also alleged that before his service came to be terminated on 12.2.2008 he was transferred from one place to another and therefore he had raised objection against his transfer. The claimant also alleged that some time after he raised objection against transfer, the opponent company issued another order dated 12.2.2008 and transferred his service from Rajkot to Gandhidham with immediate effect. According to the claimant the said order dated 12.2.2008 whereby his service came to be transferred was actually termination order. The claimant contended that the said order dated 12.2.2008 should be treated as order of retrenchment. According to the claimant the said order dated 12.2.2008 whereby his service came to be transferred was actually termination order. The claimant contended that the said order dated 12.2.2008 should be treated as order of retrenchment. The claimant contended that he served with the company for more than 240 days and that he was employee on permanent post and he was discharging duties of permanent nature and before terminating his service the company did not follow procedure prescribed for effecting retrenchment. With the said allegation the claimant demanded that the action of the opponent company of terminating service should be set aside and opponent company should be directed to reinstate him with all benefits which should be paid to him with interest @ 12%. 5.3 The opponent company opposed the reference before learned Labour Court. The opponent company denied the allegation and also raised objection against the maintainability of the reference. The opponent company specifically contended that the company has not terminated service of the claimant in any manner whatsoever and that actually the petitioner is transferred to Gandhidham vide order dated 12.2.2008. The company also claimed that the said order of transfer is issued in accordance with terms and conditions of the service (prescribed by appointment order) and there is no illegality involved in transfer of the petitioner’s service to Gandhidham which is made on account of exigencies of work. The opponent company also categorically submitted before learned Labour Court that after reading the order the claimant refused to accept the transfer order and after having learnt about his transfer vide said order dated 12.2.2008 the claimant voluntarily and for the reason best known to him stopped reporting for duty and subsequently he raised industrial dispute with concocted and incorrect allegations. The company contended that on one hand the claimant is voluntarily not reporting for duty and on the other hand he has made allegation that his service is terminated and the said allegation is incorrect and the claimant has come out with said allegation with ill-intention. The company also claimed that according to its information the claimant is gainfully employed elsewhere and the dispute is raised with ill-intention to extract money from the company. 5.4 Upon conclusion of the pleadings the learned Labour Court accepted the evidence from both sides. After parties concluded evidence learned Labour Court heard rival submissions. The company also claimed that according to its information the claimant is gainfully employed elsewhere and the dispute is raised with ill-intention to extract money from the company. 5.4 Upon conclusion of the pleadings the learned Labour Court accepted the evidence from both sides. After parties concluded evidence learned Labour Court heard rival submissions. 5.5 Thereafter learned Labour Court passed impugned award after taking into account the evidence available on record and rival submissions. 5.6 On consideration of the evidence learned Labour Court for cogent reason recorded in the award, did not accept any allegation of the claimant. 5.7 Learned Labour Court has held that the claimant failed to prove any allegation including the allegation that the opponent terminated his service. 5.8 Having reached such conclusion learned Labour Court rejected the reference vide order dated 21.7.2014. 5.9 Feeling aggrieved by the said award the claimant has taken out present petition. 6. Learned advocate for the petitioner reiterated the contention raised before learned Labour Court. Before this Court also learned advocate for the claimant insisted that the transfer order dated 12.2.2008 should be considered as order of retrenchment. He submitted that the learned Labour Court committed error by accepting company’s submission and learned Labour Court committed illegality by not directing the company to reinstate the claimant. He submitted that the claimant deserves to be reinstated in service and the opponent should be directed to reinstate the claimant and pay all consequential benefits with interest. He also submitted that if the Court is not inclined to grant reinstatement/back wages with interest then reinstatement and some compensation as may be considered appropriate by the Court should be granted. 7. Learned advocate for the respondent opposed the submission by learned advocate for the petitioner. He submitted that for administrative reasons and work exigencies service of the petitioner came to be transferred from Rajkot to Gandhidham. He submitted that instead of accepting said order of transfer the petitioner refused to accept said order and he put a remark on the transfer order to the effect that “not accepted” and thereafter he stopped reporting for duty. Learned advocate for the respondent also submitted that the claimant did not comply the order and did not report for duty at Gandhidham or even at Rajkot. Learned advocate for the respondent also submitted that the claimant did not comply the order and did not report for duty at Gandhidham or even at Rajkot. Learned advocate for the respondent submitted that after company passed order dated 12.2.2008 and upon having learnt that his service is transferred, the claimant voluntarily stopped reporting for duty and then he raised industrial dispute with concocted allegations. Learned advocate for the respondent company submitted that after the said order came to be passed until now the claimant has never reported for duty. He also submitted that even after learned Labour Court passed award the claimant never reported for duty at the station where he was transferred i.e. Gandhidham or even at Rajkot. With the said background learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the sole intention of the claimant seems to extract money from the opponent company. 8. I have considered rival submissions and I have also considered discussion by learned Labour Court in impugned award and the reasons recorded by learned Labour Court in support of the conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish any allegation and he also failed to establish that his service has been terminated. 8.1 At the outset it is necessary to mention that the learned Labour Court has discussed the evidence of both sides. The learned Labour Court has also taken into account relevant provision and upon careful consideration and evaluation of evidence available on record, learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to prove the allegation and there is no substance in the dispute raised by the claimant. The learned Labour Court has recorded finding of facts which are duly supported by evidence. The learned Labour Court also recorded cogent and satisfactory reasons to support and justify its final conclusion. By any stretch of imagination or by any yardstick the finding of facts recorded by learned Labour Court cannot be termed arbitrary or incorrect, much less perverse. The award does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. 8.2 This position becomes clear from the following discussion. 9. From the submission by learned advocate for the petitioner and from the material on record it has emerged that the petitioner came to be employed by the respondent company in February 2006 as Assistant (operation). 9.1 He was appointed at Rajkot. The award does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. 8.2 This position becomes clear from the following discussion. 9. From the submission by learned advocate for the petitioner and from the material on record it has emerged that the petitioner came to be employed by the respondent company in February 2006 as Assistant (operation). 9.1 He was appointed at Rajkot. The service of the petitioner came to be confirmed in September 2006 on the same position i.e. Assistant (operation). 9.2 Subsequently in February 2007 the petitioner earned promotion to the post of Accountant–cum–Cashier (w.e.f. 1.3.2007) and in July 2007 vide order dated 1.7.2007 the service of the petitioner came to be transferred, as branch in-charge from Rudanagar to Navagam (Rajkot). 9.3 With regard to the said event of July 2007, learned advocate for the petitioner made prolonged submissions, (though it would not have any relevance or connection with the transfer order which came to be passed in February 2008) on the premise that at that time in July 2007 the petitioner had not received transfer order and that though he did not receive the order the petitioner had, after submitting his complaint to H.R. Department, reported for duty etc. 9.4 The sum and substance of the allegation by learned advocate for the petitioner is that the service of the petitioner is being transferred by the company. Learned advocate for the petitioner would further submit that in December 2007 the nomenclature of the post was changed and the petitioner’s post was redesignated as ‘Branch In-charge’, at Navagam Rajkot. 9.5 Thereafter, in February 2008 the respondent company again issued order dated 12.2.2008 whereby the petitioner’s service came to be transferred from Rajkot to Gandhidham. In this context the petitioner has averred and stated that:- “2....Again on 12.2.2008, the petitioner transferred by the respondent company from Navagam (Rajkot) to Gandhidham city, with effect from the same day i.e. on 12.02.2008. In the same letter, the petitioner was advised to report for duties to the Traffic In-charge at Gandhidham. Unknowing of his transfer to the Gandhidham city, on next day the petitioner approached to the office of Navagam (Rajkot), and then he came to know that his transfer has already been effectuated from the date of 12.2.2008 and also the name of the petitioner got deleted from the record of Navagam (Rajkot). Unknowing of his transfer to the Gandhidham city, on next day the petitioner approached to the office of Navagam (Rajkot), and then he came to know that his transfer has already been effectuated from the date of 12.2.2008 and also the name of the petitioner got deleted from the record of Navagam (Rajkot). Aggrieved by the conduct of the respondent transferring the petitioner, the petitioner approached to the Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh, and forwarded a representation through it on dated 13.2.2008 to the respondent company, regarding various issues among issue of the transfer to the petitioner.” 9.6 It comes out from the said averments in the petition that the petitioner was aware and conscious about the order dated 12.2.2008. Despite said order of transfer the petitioner did not handover charge at Rajkot and he did not get himself relieved to report for duty at transferred i.e. Gandhidham. 9.7 Instead, on next day i.e. on 13.2.2008 the petitioner approached union and submitted a representation. 9.8 As mentioned above, it is not in dispute that from 12.2.2008 onwards the petitioner has, until now, not reported for duty with the respondent company. 9.9 It is also not in dispute that after reading the order dated 12.2.2008 and having learnt that his service was transferred to Gandhidham (from Navagam, Rajkot) the petitioner refused to accept said order dated 12.2.2008 and even put a remark “Not accepted”. 9.10 Therefore it also becomes clear that there is no doubt or dispute or even confusion as to the fact that the order dated 12.2.2008 is – in fact and in substance and in effect – order of transfer of petitioner's service from Navagam – Rajkot to Gandhidham and there is basis to read said order or to construe it as order of termination of service. 9.11 At this stage it is also relevant to note that neither during the proceedings before learned Labour Court nor on conclusion of said proceedings nor even after rendition of the award the petitioner ever reported for duty with the respondent company, much less, at the transferred place i.e. at Gandhidham or even at Rajkot. 9.12 It is also pertinent that even during pendency of the petition since January 2015, until now i.e. for past 2 ½ years after the labour Court rejected the reference, the petitioner has never reported for duty. 9.12 It is also pertinent that even during pendency of the petition since January 2015, until now i.e. for past 2 ½ years after the labour Court rejected the reference, the petitioner has never reported for duty. 9.13 When this Court specifically asked learned advocate for the petitioner that whether the petitioner ever reported for duty, after some evasive reply e.g. the petitioner made representation/request etc. ultimately learned advocate for the petitioner conceded the fact that the petitioner has, until now, never reported for duty with the respondent company and even after rendition of the award and during pendency of present petition he did not report for duty. 10. Before proceeding further it will not be out of place to mention that the appointment order of the petitioner contains specific and express provision to the effect that his service would be transferable to any of the various branches of the company in entire Country. 10.1 When the petitioner accepted appointment with the respondent company, the petitioner accepted all terms and conditions of appointment/service including the condition that his service is transferable and can be transferred to any of the branches in entire Country. 10.2 The petitioner accepted the service with conscious knowledge about the said condition of his service. 10.3 It is relevant to note that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the said condition forms part of the condition of appointment/condition of service of the petitioner. 10.4 It is also not in dispute that it is in exercise of and in pursuance of the said service condition that the service of the petitioner came to be transferred to Gandhidham. 10.5 However, the petitioner, without any justification did not obey and did not comply the said transfer order and instead on the next day the petitioner approached union. 10.6 He even refused to accept the order and put remark “No accepted”. 10.7 Thereafter, he raised industrial dispute. 10.8 During pendency of the dispute, despite the fact that any interim relief against order of transfer was not granted by the learned Labour Court and despite the fact that the operation of the said order was never stayed by learned Labour Court, the petitioner, even for a single day during entire proceedings, never reported for duty either at the transferred place or even at Rajkot. 10.9 The proceeding continued before learned Labour Court from 2008 to 2014 i.e. for almost 6 years. During the said period the petitioner never reported for duty. 11. It is pertinent to recall and note at this stage that the respondent company, in its reply affidavit before the learned Labour Court categorically submitted that according to the information of the company the claimant is already gainfully employed in some other establishment. Though the respondent has not placed cogent evidence to support the submission, however, the conduct of the petitioner during proceeding before learned Labour Court and his conduct even pursuant to the award and during pendency of the petition (of not reporting for duty since 2008 i.e. 9 years) lends support to said submission by the company before learned Labour Court. 12. Be that as it may, the fact remains that right from 12.2.2008 to February 2015 the petitioner never reported for duty with the respondent company despite the fact that the company had, in its written statement categorically stated that the service of the petitioner is not terminated and the petitioner was merely transferred to Gandhidham. 13. At this stage it would be not out of place to take into account the observations by Hon’ble Apex Court in case between Gujarat Electricity Board vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani AIR 1989 SC 1433 wherein Apex Court observed, inter alia, that:- “4....Whenever, a public servant is transferred he must comply with the order but if there be any genuine difficulty in proceeding on transfer it is open to him to make representation to the competent authority for stay, modification or cancellation of the transfer order....” 14. In view of the undisputed fact that transfer to any branch of the company is essential and inherent – rather specific and express condition of petitioner’s service and that despite such position the petitioner undisputedly, did not accept the order and did not comply the transfer order and when the transfer order was sought to be served to the petitioner, the petitioner, undisputedly put remarks on transfer order to the effect that “not accepted”. 14.1 After having put such remarks on the transfer order, the petitioner stopped reporting for duty. According to his own case, he approached union on the next day i.e. on 13.2.2008 and made representation and then voluntarily stopped reporting for duty. 14.1 After having put such remarks on the transfer order, the petitioner stopped reporting for duty. According to his own case, he approached union on the next day i.e. on 13.2.2008 and made representation and then voluntarily stopped reporting for duty. 14.2 Since then the petitioner has not reported for duty even for single day. 14.3 Still he wants not only direction that he should be reinstated but that he should be paid back wages with 12% interest. 15. Above mentioned observations by Apex Court make it clear that even if petitioner had any objection or grievance against his transfer, in view of the fact that the transfer of service is essential, specific and express condition of his service, the petitioner should have complied said transfer order. 15.1 However, the petitioner did not comply the said transfer order despite the fact that even learned Labour Court, during proceedings of the reference case, never stayed operation of the transfer order. 16. It is pertinent that learned Labour Court has observed in the award that the petitioner, during his deposition, admitted that at the time when he accepted appointment he was informed about and he was aware that his service is transferable and that he had accepted said condition. 16.1 In the award learned Labour Court has also dealt with the petitioner’s allegation about malafides and has rejected the said allegation of the petitioner. 17. In this view of the matter it is relevant to note that the petitioner did not place any evidence before the Court which would even slightly suggest much less, prove, any malafides on part of the opponent company. Merely because prior to the transfer in February 2008 the petitioner was once transferred to other station in the same district, allegation of malafides cannot be accepted or even inferred. Learned Labour Court has not committed any error in not accepting the petitioner’s allegation about malafides. In absence of any evidence to even suggest that the impugned order was tainted by malafides, conclusion by learned Labour Court cannot be faulted. 17.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner tried to claim that the respondent company had not paid bonus. Learned Labour Court has not committed any error in not accepting the petitioner’s allegation about malafides. In absence of any evidence to even suggest that the impugned order was tainted by malafides, conclusion by learned Labour Court cannot be faulted. 17.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner tried to claim that the respondent company had not paid bonus. 17.2 However, learned advocate for the petitioner could not point out that at any point of time the petitioner had instituted any proceedings to demand bonus and/or that his claim was granted by learned Labour Court which, in any manner proved that the company illegally did not pay bonus. 18. Actually the said submission by learned advocate for the petitioner, to say the least, is like an effort by a sinking man who tries to hold on to a straw. The petitioner has no material to support this absolute baseless, unjustified and incorrect allegation which appears to be nothing else but figment of the petitioner's imagination to shield disobedience and his conduct of not accepting and not complying order dated 12.2.2008 where his service came to be transferred to Gandhidham and his action of never reporting for duty from 2008 to July 2014 when award came to be passed and from 2014 until now. So as to shiel said conduct the petitioner concocted allegations only to provide some support to his action. The learned Labour Court, after examining evidence, did not believe the allegations and rejected the reference. 19. After examining evidence on record, more particularly deposition of the claimant, learned Labour Court reached to the specific finding of fact that neither action of the respondent nor the order dated 12.2.2008 can be, by any yardstick, treated or considered as order of termination/retirement. Learned Labour Court has recorded specific finding of fact that the company did not terminate service of the petitioner and/or did not retrench the petitioner from service. 20. Learned advocate for the petitioner failed to show any evidence or any material which would persuade the Court, much less convince the court, to hold that the finding of fact by the learned Labour Court is incorrect or contrary to evidence or perverse. 21. In this view of the matter, the petition fails. Learned advocate for the petitioner has failed to make out any ground against award impugned in present petition or to show any infirmity in the award. 21. In this view of the matter, the petition fails. Learned advocate for the petitioner has failed to make out any ground against award impugned in present petition or to show any infirmity in the award. Learned advocate for the petitioner also failed to demonstrate that the award in any manner is perverse. 22. Actually, in light of the conduct of the petitioner right from February 2008 until the proceedings before learned Labour Court got concluded and his subsequent conduct after rendition of the award and during pendency of the petition including the conduct of not reporting for duty for almost 10 years and then to insist that he should be awarded compensation rather he should be rewarded for not accepting and complying the order of transfer calls for order of cost and this petition deserves to be rejected with cost more particularly because despite above discussed conduct insists that he should be awarded back wages and if not back wages then at least compensation. Learned advocate for the petitioner surprisingly repeatedly made such request and submission. 23. In light of the facts and circumstances of the case and for reason mentioned above the Court is of the view that the petition should be rejected with cost quantified at Rs.10,000/-. 24. At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioner urged that the cost may not be imposed. 25. Therefore the said direction is recalled however with a word of caution that the petitioner should be careful and conscious about abuse of process of law for unjust benefits on incorrect, particularly in respect of such unjustified and unreasonable purpose which is devoid and bereft of any merits and substance.