Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 – Validity of transfers of employees – Terms contained in standing orders as opposed to terms of appointment – Reconcilable – Transfer of employees were valid under the Standing Orders and the terms of appointment. [Para 12-15]
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 – Interpretation of terms of appointment and standing orders – Both read in conjunction permitted transfers to any department or establishment of the company – Nothing contained in the standing orders can operate in derogation or to the prejudice of the provisions as provided in the contract of service – No conflict between the terms of appointment and standing orders – Principles established in Cipla Ltd. v. Jayakumar R. and Another, (1999) 1 SCC 300 examined – Squarely applicable to the instant case. [Paras 11, 14]
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 – Larger issue regarding the power of modification of the standing order not considered in the instant appeal – To be adjudicated in an appropriate proceeding – High Court erred by deciding the petitions without discussing the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal – Impugned order not sustainable – quashed and set aside. [Paras 16, 24]
Held: The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that standing orders should be read in conjunction with the employment contracts/appointment orders to determine the scope of transferability of employees – The Supreme Court also observed that the law laid down in Cipla Ltd. vs Jayakumar R. and Another (1999) 1 SCC
300 was squarely applicable to the present case – Transfers of employees were held to be lawful – The appeals were accordingly disposed of. [Paras 12-25]
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.