A workman can be transferred to a sister concern even if the legal entity of the two concerns is different, provided that the transfer is in accordance with the terms of the employment contract and the workman's consent is obtained.

( 1 ) THIS is an employers writ petition directed against an award of Labour Court. Opposite-party no. 3 was a workman employed with the petitioner in his concern of Lucknow. One of the conditions of his employment, as mentioned in his appointment letter, was that he was liable to be transferred to any of the sister concerns of the petitioner in the State of Uttar Pradesh without any additional benefits to him during his services with the company. In terms of this condition, the petitioner passed an order of transfer on 10-5-1973. The opposite-party on receipt of this order first obtained leave from the petitioner and thereafter declined to join at Phaphamau where he was to go on transfer. The opposite-party tried to join again at Lucknow itself with the petitioner, but the petitioner struck off his name from the muster-roll. Thereupon at the instance of the Workmens Union, opposite-party No. 2, the State Government, opposite-party No. 4, referred an industrial dispute to the Labour Court, The subject of reference was as to whether the transfer order was valid or not and if not what relief was the workman entitled to. The Labour court held the order to be invalid on the ground that the purported transfer was to a concern owned by different proprietor. While the petitioner was a proprietary concern, the other concern to which the workman was sought to be transferred was a limited company in which, the proprietor of the petitioner was a Director. On this finding the Labour Court ordered the reinstatement of the workman with back wages,

( 2 ) IT has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Workmens Union itself had arrived at a settlement with the petitioner agreeing that the workmen were liable to transfer to certain concerns named in the settlement, including the concern to which the opposite-party No. 3 was sought to be transferred. According to the petitioner, the Labour Court acted illegally in disregarding this settlement.

( 3 ) THE petition has been contested by the individual workman. The other opposite-parties did not enter appearance.

( 4 ) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the Labour Court presided over by the same presiding officer had in another case decided on 6-12-1975, vide Annexure 10, upheld the same settlement which is incorporated in Annexure 9 and which was arrived at between the petitioner and the union on 5-9-1974. He has taken a different view in the instant case. It appears, however, that neither opposite-party No. 3 nor the particular union opposite-party No, 2, was party to the other decision, Annexure 10. Accordingly, they are not bound by that decision. We have, therefore, to consider the correctness of the impugned decision, Annexure 7, oni ts own merits.

( 6 ) AS noted earlier, the transfer order was passed on 10-5-1973. On 27-9-1973 the petitioner and the union opposite party No. 2 made a joint application before the Conciliation Board requesting for reference of the following industrial dispute to the Board of conciliation under Section 6b of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act read with Rule 5b of the Rules made under that Act: the employers insert in the appointment letter of every workman the condition that they will have a right to transfer him to any other sister concern, but they do not specify in the appointment letter the name of the concerns to which the workman can be transferred.

( 7 ) BEFORE the Conciliation Board, the employer specified the sister concerns including the limited company having branch at Phaphamau mentioned above, thereupon, the Workmens union intimated the Board that they were satisfied and, accordingly, agreed to close the controversy. This statement was recorded on 5-9-1974, vide Annexure 9. The reference of the present industrial dispute to the Labour Court was made by the Slate Government on 22-10-1974. It is not clear as to whether the State Government took the settl