Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: s.9A – Transfer order – Amounting to illegal change under s.9A – Respondent-workmen employed in the Dewas factory of appellant as labourer – Order of transfer to Chopanki, which is 900 Kms away from Dewas – On transfer, after training, workmen were to work as supervisor – Industrial dispute – Labour court found that the workmen-nine in number were transferred from Dewas with intention to reduce the number of persons employed at Dewas and such an act was covered by Clause 11 of Schedule 4 of the I.D. Act and since no notice of change was given, the transfer orders were in violation of s.9A of the I.D. Act – Labour Court also specifically found on appreciation of evidence that transfer would change the nature of work since the workmen were employed as labourers at Dewas and on transfer at Chopanki, they would be working as Supervisor – Employermanagement unsuccessfully challenged order of Labour Court before the High Court – Hence instant appeal – Held: The order transferring the respective workmen from Dewas to Chopanki at about 900 Kms. away was in violation of s.9A read with Fourth Schedule of the ID Act and was arbitrary, mala fide and victimization – By such transfer, their status as “workman” would change to that of “supervisor” – Thus, by such a change after their transfer to Chopanki and after they work as supervisor they would be deprived of the beneficial provisions of the ID Act and, therefore, the nature of service conditions/service would be changed – Even from the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the Single Judge, it can be seen that the appellant/employer has failed to justify the transfer from Dewas to Chopanki, which is at a distance of 900 Kms. and that too at the fag end of their service career – Every aspect was dealt with and considered in detail by the Labour Court as well as by the Single Judge of the High Court.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court as well as Single Judge of the High Court that the order transferring the respective workmen from Dewas to Chopanki was arbitrary, mala fide, amounted to victimization, unfair labour practice and in violation of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act. On appreciation of evidence, more particularly, while considering the deposition of DW-1, DW-2 and depositions of PW-1 and PW-2, the Labour Court came to the findings that the respective respondents-workmen were in the category of workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, they were entitled to protection under the Industrial Disputes Act; 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, the same was in violation of Section 9A read with Clause 11 of the Fourth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act; that by transferring the nine employees-workmen, there will be reduction of workmen at Dewas factory; that at Dewas, the workmen were employed in the capacity of a workman and the work of manufacturing precision pipes is done whereas at Chopanki manufacturing of nut and bolts is done. The said findings by the 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. 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 were transferred suddenly and that too at the fag end of their service career; that the place where they were transferred had no educational and medical facilities and that had no residential area within 40-50 Kms. from the plant with no means of transport. [Para 7 and 7.1][791-A-H; 792-A]
1.2 The order of transfer dated 13.01.2015 transferring the respective workman from Dewas to Chopanki, which is at about
900 Kms. away is in violation of Section 9A read with Fourth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act and is arbitrary, mala fide and victimization. By such transfer, their status as “workman” would be changed to that of “supervisor”. By such a change after their transfer to Chopanki and after they work as supervisor they will be deprived of the beneficial provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, the nature of service conditions/service would be changed. Even from the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the Single Judge, it can be seen that the appellant/employer has failed to justify the transfer of nine employees from Dewas to Chopanki, which is at a distance of
900 Kms. and that too at the fag end of their service career. Every aspect has been dealt with and considered in detail by the Labour Court as well as by the Single Judge of the High Court. [Paras 7.4, 7.5][793-G-H; 794-A-D]
1.3 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the appellant that so far as the transfer is concerned, it is part of the service conditions and therefore Section 9A shall not be applicable is concerned, the same has no substance. The question is not about the transfer only, the question is about the consequences of transfer. In the present case, the nature of work/service conditions would be changed and the consequences of transfer would result in the change of service conditions and the reduction of employees at Dewas factory, for which the Fourth Schedule and Section 9A shall be attracted. [Para 7.8] [794-G-H; 795-A-B] Ashok K. Jha and Ors. v. Garden Silk Mills Limited and Anr., (2009) 10 SCC 584 : [2009] 13 SCR 886; Shaillendra Kumar v. Divisional Forest Officer and Anr. (2017) SCC Online MP 1514; Yogendra Singh
Chouhan v. Managing Director, Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Anr., WA No.46 of 2021; State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Patiram, WA No. 1932 of 2019 (2020 SCC Online MP 3660); Murari Lal Chhari and Ors. v. Munishwar Singh Tomar and Anr. in WA No.1191 of 2019 (2019 SCC Online MP 4559); President vs. Director, Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd., WP No.12934 of 2015 (2015 (4) MPLJ 595); Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Ram Mohan Ray and Ors., (1973) 4 SCC 141 : [1973]
3 SCR 924; Harmohinder Singh v. Kharga Canteen, Ambala Cantt., (2001) 5 SCC 540 : [2001] 3 SCR 796; Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Associated Cement Staff Union 2009 SCC Online Bom 2132 – referred to
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.