M.R.SHAH,J. - (1.) As common question of law and issues have been raised in this group of appeals, as such arising out of the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, all these appeals are being decided and disposed of together by this common judgment and order.
(2.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in MP No.245 of 2019 and other allied petitions by which the High Court has dismissed the said petitions preferred by the appellant herein - employer (hereinafter referred to as "employer") and has confirmed the respective judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Dewas dated 13.11.2018 by which the Labour Court allowed the said reference in favour of the respondents - employees by declaring their order of transfer dated 13.01.2015 as illegal and void, the employer has preferred the present appeals.
(3.) The brief facts in nutshell are as under:- 3.1 That the respective workmen were employed and working in the Dewas factory of the appellant. That vide order dated 13.01.2015, all of them came to be transferred to Chopanki, District Alwar, which is 900 Kms. away from Dewas. The respective workmen through their Union raised the industrial dispute before competent authority and on failure of the conciliation proceedings, a reference was made to the Labour Court. The following question was referred to the Labour Court:- "Whether the transfer of Shri Kanhaiyalal by the NonApplicant is valid and proper? If not, then what relief can be granted to him and what directions need to be given to the employer in this respect?" Similar dispute was referred with respect to the each workman. 3.2 The respective workmen filed their statement of claim before the Labour Court. It was the case on behalf of the workmen that the transfer was done malafidely with the intention to reduce the number of workmen in the Dewas factory; that the employer pressurized the workmen to resign and on refusal, the employer transferred them without any justifiable reason to Chopanki at Rajasthan, which is 900 Kms. away; such a transfer amounts to the illegal change under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "I.D. Act"); that all the family members and their relatives are residing at Dewas and the facilities which are available at Dewas are not available at Chopanki and at Chopanki within the radius of 40-50 Kms neither there is any residential area nor any means of transport are available; and that their services is also not required at Chopanki factory. It was also the case on behalf of the respective workmen that at Dewas precision pipes are manufactured whereas at Chopanki, the work of manufacturing of nut and bolt is done and the transfer will change the nature of work, therefore, it was prayed to declare the transfer as illegal and void. 3.3 The employer filed the reply to the statement of claim before the Labour Court. It was specifically denied that the transfer was done to reduce the number of workmen at Dewas. It was submitted that no unfair labour practice was adopted and compliance of Section 9A of the I.D. Act was not necessary. It was also denied that the workmen were pressurized to tender resignation. A plea was raised that since there was continuous reduction in production at Dewas and the staff had become surplus which was not required and, therefore, to continue the employment of the concerned workmen, they had been transferred as per their service conditions and no notice in this regard under Section 9A of the I.D. Act was required. It was also stated that at Chopanki factory, all the facilities are available. 3.4 Both the parties led the evidences. The workmen examined PW-1, Kanhaiya Lal and PW-2, Vijay Pratap Singh Ranawat in support of their case/plea and the employer examined DW-1 Manoj Thakkar, DW-2 Rajveer Singh and DW-3 Mukesh Kulshreshtha. Both the parties also brought on record the documentary evidences in support of their respective cases. 3.5 That on appreciation of evidences, the Labour Court specifically found that employer could not prove that there was continuous reduction of production at Dewas factory and that the staff had proportionately become surplus. The Labour Court also found that the workmen - nine in numbers were transferred from Dewas with the 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 are in violation of Section 9A of the I.D. Act. The Labour Court also specifically found on appreciation of evidence that transfer will change the nature of work since the workmen were employed as labourers at Dewas and on transfer at Chopanki, they will be working as Supervisor. Consequently, the Labour Court found the order of transfer as null and void and consequently the Labour Court set aside the same. 3.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, the employer - management preferred writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court and by the impugned common judgment and order the High Court has dismissed the said writ petitions treating the said writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred writ appeal/s before the Division Bench of the High Court and the Division Bench has dismissed the said appeal/s as not maintainable observing that the writ petition/s before the learned Single Judge was/were under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3.7 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petitions and confirming the respective judgments and awards passed by the Labour Court declaring the order of transfer dated 13.01.2015 as illegal, null and void and in breach of the provisions of the I.D. Act, more particularly, Section 9A of the I.D. Act, the management/employer has preferred the present appeals. That the appellant has also challenged the order passed by the Division Bench dismissing the writ appeal/s as not maintainable. ;