Das Gupta, J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave is against the decision of the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, in an application by the respondent under s. 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The appellant is a banking company which has numerous branches all over southern India. The respondent joined the service of the appellant-bank on June 14, 1951 and after confirmation in September 1952 was posted at Udipi. He was later transferred to Trichur; but on his representation was transferred to Mandvi Branch, Bombay, in July 1956. On May 20, 1961, another order of transfer was made by the appellant-bank posting the respondent back at Trichur. The present application under s. 33A was made on August 26, 1961, praying that the transfer order of May 20, 1961 be cancelled and the respondent permitted to continue at Bombay. It was alleged in the application that the appellant made the transfer order mala fide and as an Act of victimization for the lawful trade union activities of the complainant. It was also alleged that the transfer was made to deprive the complainant of his lawful dues.
(2.) This application was made before the National Industrial Tribunal at Bombay before which proceedings in respect of an industrial dispute between the appellant-bank and its workmen was then pending. The National Tribunal transferred the application to the labour Court, Ahmedabad, for disposal. Before the Labour Court the appellant contended that there had been no contravention of the provisions of s. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act as no change had been made in the service conditions of the respondents employment and further that the transfer had been made bona fide on account of sheer business considerations and exigencies of business. It was also contended that the order of transfer made by the bank did not offend the terms of the Sastry Award on the question of transfer of Bank employees. The Labour Court held that under the terms of the Sastry Award the appellants right to transfer his employees was limited to this extent that a clerk like the respondent could not be transferred outside the State or language area in which he had been serving except with his consent. Holding that there had been no such consent, it came to the conclusion that the conditions of service of the respondent had been altered in a manner not in accordance with the standing order contained in the Sastry Award. Proceeding next on the assumption that the Sastry Award permitted the Bank to transfer clerks outside the State or the language area when it was in the interests of the Banks business, it considered the question whether the bank had no other alternative but to transfer this particular clerk outside the State or the language area in which he had been serving and came to the conclusion that this had not been established by the Bank. The Court rejected the allegation that the transfer had been made to victimize the respondent for his union activities. Being of opinion however that by the transfer the appellant had materially altered the respondents service conditions and this alteration was not in accordance with Sastry Award, the Court directed the bank to cancel the transfer order and to re-transfer the complainant to Mandvi Branch, Bombay. The Bank has now appealed against this direction.
(3.) The relevant direction in the Sastry Award on the question of transfer is in these words : "We direct that in general the policy should be to limit the transfers to minimum consistent with the banking needs and efficiency. So far as members of the subordinate establishment are concerned there should be no transfers ordinarily and if there are any transfers at all, they should not be beyond the language area of the person so transferred. We further direct that even in the case of workmen not belonging to the subordinate staff, as far as possible, there should be no transfer outside the State or the language areas in which the employee has been serving except, of course, with his consent." ;