Back
In the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Indore Bench
VIVEK RUSIA, J.
Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. through Managing Director and Another - Petitioner
Versus
Yogendra Singh Chouhan - Respondents
Miscellaneous Petition No. 2212/2020
Decided on : 26-11-2020
Labour Court - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - 2(s), Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 - [2(s) of ID Act, 2(d) of SPE Act] - The court adjudicated on the transfer of an employee from Indore to Mumbai. The respondent alleged mala fide and non-payment of wages. The court found that the respondent failed to prove mala fide and assault allegations. It also found that the respondent was not paid wages for four months. The court held that the transfer was in accordance with the appointment letter and the respondent had accepted the terms and conditions. The court also discussed the applicability of the ID Act and SPE Act to the respondent's employment, citing relevant case law. The court quashed the Labour Court's order, citing the Supreme Court's position on transfer orders.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, an employee of a pharmaceutical company, was transferred from Indore to Mumbai. The respondent alleged mala fide and non-payment of wages. The Labour Court found that the respondent failed to prove mala fide and assault allegations. It also found that the respondent was not paid wages for four months.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the transfer was in accordance with the appointment letter and the respondent had accepted the terms and conditions. The court also discussed the applicability of the ID Act and SPE Act to the respondent's employment, citing relevant case law.
Issues: The issues included the alleged mala fide and assault, non-payment of wages, and the applicability of the ID Act and SPE Act to the respondent's employment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the respondent failed to prove mala fide and assault allegations. It also found that the respondent was not paid wages for four months. The court held that the transfer was in accordance with the appointment letter and the respondent had accepted the terms and conditions. The court also discussed the applicability of the ID Act and SPE Act to the respondent's employment, citing relevant case law.
Final Decision: The court quashed the Labour Court's order, citing the Supreme Court's position on transfer orders.
ORDER :
VIVEK RUSIA, J.
1. Petitioners have filed the present petition being aggrieved by the award dated 18.02.2020 (pronounced on 23.03.2020) passed by the Labour Court, Indore in Reference Case No. 51/IDR/14.
2. Facts of the case, in short, are as under : 2. Petitioner No. 1 is a company registered under the Companies Act and engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products. The petitioner No. 2 is the General Manager HRD (Field) posted in the head office at Ahmadabad. The petitioner No. 1 company is having operation all over the country managed from its administrative office at Ahmadabad. The petitioner No. 1 company engages employees for the purpose of promotion of the products of the company for sale and they are called as Sales Representatives.
3. Respondent was appointed vide letter dated 20.05.2011 as Area Business Executive Trainee w.e.f. 20.05.2011 for a period of six months which may extend by the company for a further period of six months at its sole discretion. During the training period (field) he was posted at Indore. The other terms and conditions of the appointment have been incorporated in the letter dated 23.05.2011 itself. His basic salary was Rs. 1600/- and drawn total salary of Rs. 13,170/- per moth. He was also entitled to HQ. allowance, Ex. HQ. allowance and outstation allowance per wrking day etc.
4. Vide order dated 21.09.2013 the General Manager HRD (Field) has transferred the respondent from Indore HQ. to Mumbai HQ. w.e.f. 01.10.2013 to look after SYBELLA Division in the business interest. The respondent did not join at the transferred place and raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Commissioner. The Labour Commissioner had initiated the conciliation proceeding which ended into failure hence vide order dated 21.07.2014 the Govt. has referred the dispute to the Labour Court for its adjudication with the following terms of reference:
5. After the reference the case was registered as 51/2014/ID Ref. The respondent filed the statement of claim alleging that he was informed by the Regional Manager that the management is not happy with his working and they want him to submit his resignation. Since he refused to give resignation hence in order to put undue pressure and with an intention to victimize him he has been transferred from Indore to Mumbai. He has also alleged that he was working with full satisfaction of the management but on 04.05.2013 the Regional Manager has insulted him by shouting and assaulting before the staff He has alleged malafide against the management and challenged the authority of petitioner No. 2 to issue his transfer order.
6. After receipt of the notice petitioners have filed written statement raising a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the reference for want of territorial jurisdiction of Labour Court and specifically denied the allegations made in the statement of claim. The en titioners have specifically pleaded that in view of the terms and conditions of the appointment letter the respondent has been transferred in the interest of business, hence no interference is called for. The petitioners have also challenged that the reference is not maintainable before the Labour Court as the respondent does not come under the category of Workman as defined under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ID Act’).
7. On the basis of the pleading the Labour Court has framed 7 issues for adjudication which are as under:
8. In support of the statement of claim, respondent examined himself as PW/1 and Rajesh Goyal, Medial Representative but he did not appear in the Court for cross-examination. The respondent was cross-examined by the representative of the petitioners. In defence the petitioners examined Mangesh Ghatage, Asst. General Manager (Field) HR and he was cross-examined in detail by the respondent.
9. That ld Labour Court has answered the issues No. 1 & 3 against the respondent. The issues No. 2, 4 &
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
