Back
1979 Supreme(Mad) 142
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN
Management of Addison and Company - Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madras and Others - Respondent
Case No : W.P. No. 3141 of 1976
Decided On : 05 March 1979
The Labour Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute over the re-transfer of employees who were transferred to a department that was subsequently closed, and the Court can direct the re-transfer of the employees if it finds that the transfer was mala fide.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 10(4) - TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEES - RE-TRANSFER - JURISDICTION OF LABOUR COURT - VALIDITY OF CLOSURE - MALA FIDES - RELIEF.
Fact of the Case:
Two workmen, Kannahsha and Raman, were transferred from the tools department to the foundry department. The foundry department was subsequently closed, and the workmen were not re-transferred to the tools department. They raised an industrial dispute, and the Labour Court directed their reinstatement in the tools department with back wages.
Finding of the Court:
The Labour Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute, as the order of reference was broad enough to encompass the issue of re-transfer. The transfer of the workmen was mala fide, as it was motivated by a desire to terminate their services. The closure of the foundry department was valid, but the workmen were entitled to be re-transferred to the tools department.
Issues: 1. Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. 2. Whether the transfer of the workmen was mala fide. 3. Whether the closure of the foundry department was valid. 4. Whether the workmen were entitled to be re-transferred to the tools department.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The jurisdiction of a Labour Court is limited to the points of dispute specified in the order of reference, but the order should be construed liberally to ensure that justice is done. 2. An order of transfer is mala fide if it is motivated by a desire to terminate the services of the employees. 3. The validity of a closure is a matter for the Government to decide, and the Labour Court cannot interfere with the Government's decision. 4. Workmen who are transferred to a department that is subsequently closed are entitled to be re-transferred to their original department.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed with costs.
Mohan, J.
This petition is for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the award made in I.D. No. 5 of 1975 and the management is the petitioner before us.
2. The facts leading to the writ petition may be stated thus
The workmen, two in number by name Kannahsha and Raman, were employed in the tools department of the petitioner-company. On 30-8-1972, Kannahsha was transferred to the foundry department. On 5-9-1972 a similar order of transfer was made as far as Raman was concerned. On 13-11-1972, as evidenced by W. 1, Kannahsha protested against his transfer and requested that he be retained in the tools department. It was also alleged by him that by reason of his transfer, he stood to lose a sum of Rs. 100 per month. This being so, on 19-1-1973 there was a strike in the foundry department. On 25-1-1973, a notice was put up for lock-out of the entire establishment. On 18-4-1973 the lock-out was lifted for the tools department. In March-June, 1973 persons working in the foundry department were called upon to express their willingness for their voluntary retirement. Forty out of 325 workmen expressed their willingness. On 4-7-1973, the foundry section was closed with effect from 11-7-1973. Thereupon notices were issued to the individual workmen offering closure compensation. As a result of the closure, if it was not attended by other circumstances, the services of Kannahsha and Raman would stand terminated. On 7-9-1973 there was a reply to this notice by the workmen concerned and thereafter an industrial dispute arose.
3. This dispute was taken up to the Government and they passed G.O. (Rt.) No. 89 dated 10-1-1975, the operative portion of which is to the following effect :
NOTIFICATION
Whereas the Government are of the opinion that an industrial dispute has arisen between the workmen Thiruvalargal D. Raman and K. Kannahsha and the Management of Addison and Company, Madras in respect of matters mentioned in the annexure to this order :And whereas in the opinion of the Government of Tamil Nadu, it is necessary to refer the said dispute for adjudication;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (Central Act XIV of 1947), the Government of Tamil Nadu hereby directs that the said dispute be referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Madras.
R. Pasupathi, Secretary to Government
Annexure :
Whether the demand of the workmen for retransfer of Thiruvalargal D. Raman and K. Kannahsha to the tools section consequent on the closure of the foundry section is justified; if so, to what relief they would be entitled.
"Then again on the same day, they passed another order in G.O. (Rt.) No. 90 which has been marked as W. 15. As a result of G.O. (Rt.) No. 89 dated 10-1-1975, the demand of the workmen that the two workmen, namely, Kannahsha and Raman, should be re-transferred to the tools section came up for adjudication.
4. It was argued on behalf of the management that when once there is a valid closure as found in G.O. (Rt.) No. 90 dated 10-1-1975, the services of these two workmen would stand automatically terminated and if that be so, there is no question of re-transferring them to the tools department, since such a retransfer postulates continuance in service. In any event, their transfer was not the subject-matter or reference and there was no possibility of widening the scope of the dispute by seeking to adjudicate the validity of the orders of transfer. These contentions of the management did not find favour with the Labour Court and, therefore, the Court on a discussion of the entire matter, passed an award to the following effect :" *
In the result, therefore, award is passed that the workmen Thiruvalargal D. Raman and K. Kannahsha are declared entitled to be retransferred from the foundry section to the tools section of the management consequent on the closure of the foundry section, and that they shall be reinstated in service in the tools section with
