The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer of workmen resulting in a change of service conditions and reduction of employees at the original factory violated Sec. 9A read with Fourth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. In view of the order passed by the Apex Court dtd. 10/1/2022 in Misc.No.21/2022 filed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No.3/2020, the delay in filing the appeal stands condoned.

3. This writ appeal has been filed challenging the final order dtd. 6/12/2021 passed in W.P.No.3398/2018 whereby, the writ petition preferred by the appellant under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award dtd. 28/1/2014 in I.D.No.22/2012 passed by the III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru was dismissed.

4. This Court, under similar facts and circumstances, has dismissed W.A.No.74 of 2022 (L-SE) vide judgment and order dtd. 7/6/2022 relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Caparo Engineering India Ltd. vs. Ummed Singh Lodhi and another (Civil Appeal Nos .5829-5830 of 2021) along with connected matters, whereby the Apex Court in its judgment dtd. 26/10/2021 has categorically held that the writ appeal in such matters would not be maintainable. Paragraph 7 of the judgment is relevant which, on reproduction, reads as under:

"7. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court as well as learned Single Judge of the High Court that the order of transfer dtd. 13/1/2015 transferring the respective workman from Dewas to Chopanki was arbitrary, mala fide, amounted to victimization, unfair labour practice and in violation of Sec. 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act. On appreciation of evidence, more particularly, while considering the deposition of DW-1 Manoj Thakkar, the deposition of DW-2 Rajveer Singh and depositions of PW-1, Kanhaiya Lal and PW-2, Vijay Pratap Singh Ranawat, the learned Labour Court came to the following findings:-

(i) that the respective respondents- workmen were in the category of workman under Sec. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, they were entitled to the protection under the Industrial Disputes Act ;

(ii) that by transferring them from Dewas to Chopanki, there would be change of work and, therefore, there would be change in the conditions of service and, therefore, the same is in violation of Sec. 9A read with Clause 11 of the Fourth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act;

(iii) that by transferring the nine employees-workmen, there will be reduction of workmen at Dewas factory;

(iv) that at Dewas, the workmen were employed in the capacity of a workman and at Dewas the work of manufacturing precision pipes is done whereas at Chopanki manufacturing of nut and bolts is done.

7.1 The aforesaid findings by the learned Labour Court are on appreciation of evidence on record, which as such cannot be said to be perverse and/or contrary to the evidence on record. We have also minutely gone through the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court as well as the evidence on record. It emerge from the evidence on record that the respective respondents - employees were employed at Dewas and working at Dewas for more than 25 to 30 years; all of them came to be transferred suddenly from Dewas to Chopanki, which is at a distance of 900 Kms. from Dewas; they came to be transferred at the fag end of their service career; that the place where they were transferred had no educational and medical facilities and that the place where they were transferred had no residential area within 40-50 Kms. from the plant with no means of transport.

7.2 It also emerges that the number of workers at Dewas factory has been reduced by nine by transferring the workmen to Chopanki. It also emerges that even as admitted by DW- 1 and DW-2 the transferred workmen would work in the capacity of supervisor at Chopanki and after their transfer to Chopanki, they will be given training and assigned the work of supervisor.

7.3 As observed hereinabove and even the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court and even it also emerge from the evidence on record that at Dewas all of them were 'workmen' as defined in Sec. 2(s)