IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that disputes involving multiple workmen regarding employment conditions, such as transfer orders, are classified as industrial disputes under Sec. 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, thus excluding the jurisdiction of Civil Courts.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Admit.

2. Heard Mr Parag Rao appearing with Mr A. Parrikar for the Applicant/Petitioner, Mr E. Dias appearing with Ms Esther Dias do Rosario for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Mr Shivraj Gaonkar appearing with Mr P. Sirvoicar for Respondent Nos.5, 10, 11.

3. By way of present revision, Applicant/Defendant is challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court dtd. 29/9/2017 by which application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC was rejected.

4. The learned Counsel Mr Parag Rao would submit that suit filed by the Respondents/Plaintiffs claiming the relief therein is impliedly covered under Sec. 2(k) of Industrial Disputes Act and that the Respondents/Plaintiffs are the workmen who challenged their transfer orders before Civil Court. He would submit that from the reading of plaint in a meaningful way, it is clear that the entire dispute is covered under the Industrial Disputes Act between the workmen and its employer. The plaint discloses about settlement, charter of demands and other conditions under which Respondents/Plaintiffs were working. He then would submit that the appointment letters issued by the Applicant/Defendant to the Respondents/Plaintiffs would clearly go to show that there is condition that the said workmen will have to work at the place and as per the exigencies of the work and therefore, transfer of the said workmen is clearly an industrial dispute which ought to have been raised before the concerned Labour Court or the Industrial Court as the case may be and not before the Civil Court. He claimed that there is implied bar of the Civil Court to entertain such dispute.

5. Mr Rao placed reliance on the following decisions:- (1) Management of the Syndicate Bank Ltd. vs. Workmen; AIR 1966 SC 1283, (2) Workmen M/s Dharam Pal Prem Chand vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand (Saugandhi); AIR 1966 SC 182, (3) The Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Bombay and Ors.; (1976) 1 SCC 496, (4) Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam and Ors. vs. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad and Anr; (2002) 2 SCC 542, (5) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn. and Ors. vs (2005) 7 SCC 447, and (6) Milkhi Ram vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board; (2021) 10 SCC 752.

6. Per contra, learned Counsel Mr Dias appearing for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 contended that there was memorandum of settlement before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, however, appointment letter issued to the Plaintiffs nowhere shows that there was any condition of transfer. He would submit that the Plaintiffs were only required to work at Mormugao Port and therefore, such transfer is mala fide and would not cover industrial disputes per se. He then submitted that the dispute is between industrial workmen and the employer though suit is filed jointly by the Plaintiffs. He then would submit that such transfer being mala fide, the Civil Court is the only forum under Sec. 9 of CPC which is having jurisdiction to decide such aspect.

7. Mr Gaonkar appearing for other Respondents strongly contended that under the schedule of Industrial Disputes Act and more particularly considering the definition in Sec. 2(k), there is no entry of transfer which could be considered as unfair labour practice. He would submit that Sec. 2(A) which was subsequently introduced permit individual workmen to raise industrial dispute but only under four categories wherein transfer of such workmen is not covered. He, therefore, would submit that the dispute raised by the Plaintiffs in the suit is not an industrial dispute and therefore, Civil Court is the only forum to decide such aspect.

8. Mr Dias and Mr Gaonkar relied upon the following decisions:- (1) S. Partap Singh vs. State of Punjab; AIR 1964 SC 72, (2) Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. (C.S.) Ltd., Calcutta vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India; (2006) 5 BomCR 709, (3) Bombay Union of Journalists and Ors. Vs. 'Hindu' Bombay and Anr.; AIR 1963 SC 318, (4) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. vs. Krishna Kant and Ors.;