JUDGMENT

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KIRPAL, J. - Special leave granted.

2. The dispute which arises in this case pertains to the transfer of the respondent from the appellants establishment at Bangalore to its factory at Mumbai.

3. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent was appointed as a mechanic by a letter of appointment dated 31-1-1983 in the appellants establishment at Bangalore. Two of the terms of appointment which are relevant for the purposes of the present case namely clause 3 and clause 11 are as follows :

Clause 3 :

You will be in full time employment with the Company. You are required to work at the Companys establishment at Bangalore or at any of its establishments in India as the Company may direct without being entitled to any extra remuneration. You shall have to carry out such duties as are assigned to you, diligently and during such hours as may be stipulated by the management from time to time. While you are in service, you shall not be employed elsewhere or have any interest in any trade or business.

Clause 11 :

You will be governed by the Standing Orders applicable for workmen of the Company, a copy of which is attached for your reference.

4. It appears that by an order dated 16-4-1996 the respondent was transferred from Bangalore and was required to report at the Companys office at Mumbai. Instead of joining at Mumbai the respondent filed a complaint under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, being Complaint No. 3 of 1996 in ID No. 15 of 1994 before the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore. It was alleged therein by Respondent 1 that there was no provision of transfer of an employee from one factory to another and the transfer of the first respondent was in violation of the provisions of the Standing Orders and, furthermore, the said transfer amounted to alteration in the service conditions.

5. The defence of the appellant to the said application was that the transfer has been effected in accordance with the terms of employment and the application under Section 33-A was not maintainable. In this connection, it was submitted that the transfer of the respondent to Mumbai was not in any way concerned with the industrial dispute which was pending adjudication in ID No. 15 of 1994.

6. By an award dated 13-6-1996 the Industrial Tribunal allowed the said application of Respondent 1 and it came to the conclusion that the Standing Orders of the Companys establishment at Bangalore did not mention about the transfer from one establishment to another and therefore the appellant herein had no power to transfer the first respondent from Bangalore. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that clause 3 of the appointment letter permitting such a transfer was in conflict with the Standing Orders and therefore the said clause could not be given effect to.

7. Being aggrieved, the appellant herein filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and the appeal filed by the appellant also met with no success. Hence this appeal by special leave.

8. The main question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant could, in law, transfer Respondent 1 from Bangalore to Mumbai. If such a power was there with the appellant then it is accepted by the learned counsel for the respondent that such a transfer would in fact not amount to altering the conditions of service of the respondent with the result that the provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act would not be attracted.

9. It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that notwithstanding the aforesaid clause 3 in the letter of appointment the position in law is that if there is any clause which is in conflict with the Standing Orders then the Standing Orders must prevail. It was submitted that clause 11 of the letter of appointment clearly stipulated that the Standing Orders would be