K. Veeraswami, C.J.
1. We would have readily agreed with the counsel for the respondent that the power of transfer is inherent in the management which has for several branches and there is no indication in the appointment order that the employee was not subject to transfer (See Alexandre Bouzourou v. The Ottoman Bank) A.I.R. 1930 P. C. 118, but the Commissioner's conclusion was based on the facts and the history of the appellant's case. The appellant was employed by the previous management to serve in Tiruchi. He had done so far more than 17 years and on a small salary of Rs. 58 per mensem. The respondent took over from June 1, 1966, and appointed the appellant by a fresh order. The Commissioner on these facts was of opinion that the appellant was appointed to work at Tiruchi branch. That was a factual conclusion justified by the facts and the history of the case.
2. That being so, there is no justification to invoke any point of law or inherent power in the management to transfer. The Privy Council pointed out in the case mentioned that where from the nature of the contract entered into between a bank and its servants it is difficult to assume that the bank would willingly agree that their employees should not be bound to serve outside the place where the contract was made except with their consent, such a condition of the contract would require to be clearly established. But, in this case, the Commissioner came to that factual conclusion that the understanding was that the appellant should serve at Tiruchi. That being so, no point of law arises, much less any error in respect of it.
3. That being so, the appeals are allowed. No costs.