Karnataka High Court
Judges : D.P.Hiremath
V.MOOKAN, MAJOR - Appellant
Versus
BRANCH MANAGER, SOUTHERN ROADWAYS LTD. - Respondent
Misc. First Appeal 2685 Of 1988
Decided On : 01/24/1989
Advocates Appeared :
ASHOK B.PATIL, G.KASTURI, H.B.DATAR
Transfer - Industrial Disputes Act - Section 7, Section 25-T, Fifth Schedule - The court discussed the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a dispute regarding the transfer of an employee, and the statutory provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act. It highlighted the definition of 'unfair labour practice' and the remedy provided by the Act for enforcing the rights created by it.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an employee, challenged his transfer to a location where his services could not be utilized, alleging mala fides due to his union membership. The respondents argued that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction and the transfer was due to business exigencies.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute and that the appellant had a remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act for enforcing his rights regarding the transfer.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Civil Court, mala fides in the transfer, applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Industrial Disputes Act provides a remedy for enforcing rights related to transfers, and the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is impliedly barred in such cases.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as the Court found no merit in the appellant's arguments.
( 1 ) APPEAL coming up for admission. Admitted. Heard on merits.
( 2 ) THE appellant herein is employed as a fitter under the second respondent - Southern Roadways which operates goods transport vehicles between different places spread over the States in southern India. Initially he was appointed as a cleaner and thereafter promoted as a fitter. His appointment in the first instance was at Madurai in the Central Maintenance and Parts department in the year 1966 and thereafter was transferred for the first time to Bangalore office in the year 1987. In the same year he was transferred to Madurai again in the month of september, and then to Bangalore on 1st January, 1988. Thereafter, by an order dated 11th April, 1988 he was transferred to Mangalore with effect from 12th April, 1988. This last transfer, according to him, was to a place where there was no Maintenance Department at all in which his services could be utilised and the action, of the respondents in transferring him to Mangalore lacks bona fides for the reason that he has enrolled himself as a member of the Workers' Union. He challenged this order in the Court of the City Civil Judge at Bangalore in O. S. 2180/88 and. A. II was filed for temporary injunction restraining the respondents from giving effect to the said transfer order dated 11th April, 1988.
( 3 ) THE respondents maintain that in the first instance the Civil Court has no jurisdiction as the only course open to the appellant is to raise an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes act and the act of transfer clearly falls under Item No. 1 of Second Schedule of the Industrial disputes Act read with Section 7. Secondly, on merits they contended that on 4th March, 1988 he was promoted as Assistant Fitter or Assistant Operator and due to the requirement of one person who knows the work of maintenance of vehicles and small repairs to the vehicles urgently at the Mangalore Depot, he was transferred to Mangalore. Under the probationary appointment letter he cannot question the transfer order. It is due to exigencies in the business and he is liable for transfer even in future.
( 4 ) THE Court below addressed itself to the question of jurisdiction and found that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It particularly pointed out at para 6 of its order that the nature of relief claimed by the plaintiff is a "dispute" under the Industrial Disputes Act. In view of the legislative law and the precedent law in this regard it found that this is not the forum in which the plaintiff could agitate against the order of transfer passed by the respondents. It also incidentally observed that mala fides could not be attributed to the respondents, in case the transfer order is not given effect to, the respondents would be put to greater hardship and injury inasmuch as they were to suffer.
( 5 ) IN challenging this order of the Court below, it is urged on behalf of the appellant that the court below went wrong in finding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. According to the appellant, the Union has not espoused his cause to raise the dispute and therefore the appellant's right to agitate against his transfer in a Civil Court is not taken away. Thus, the main ground on which the order is attacked is that as a fact the Union has not raised the dispute. Consequently there is no reference as required under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Industrial disputes Act was amended in the year 1984 and Section 25-T came to be introduced which is as follows:
"no employer or workman or a trade union, whether registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (16 of 1926), or not, shall commit any unfair labour practice".
The 5th Schedule is also introduced by the same Amendment and in Item 7 what is unfair labour practice is also stated and this particularly refers to transfer. Thus, to transfer workman mala fide from one place to another under the guise of the management policy is o
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.