- (1.) The petitioner is an employee of the 1st respondent which is a Public Sector undertaking. Years ago there was an industrial establishment known as Government Porcelains Factory which was run under the direct control of the Government of Karnataka. Later, in the year 1967, it was converted into a limited company and known as Mysore Porcelains Limited which was taken over as a subsidiary unit of the first respondent and thereafter it became a unit of the said 1st respodent-company.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he had been in the service even prior to the taking over of the unit by the 1st respondent having been employed in the year 1958; that the petitioner was a member of the Executive Committee of the Government Porcelains Factory Employees' Association; that that Association ceased to function in the year 1980; that a Union known as BHEL (EPD) Employees' Association came into existence owing to the unceasing efforts of the petitioner in its promotion and in all its other activities; that he is a very popular member of the said Union having been elected to represent the Union in BHEL Provident Fund Trust; that he had been very vociferous in the meetings held by the Trust and in pointing out several lapses in the administration and scope for improvement in working of the Trust; that the officers of the 1st respondent-company are not well-disposed towards him and that therefore he has now been transferred to its Jagadishpur unit by the 1st respondent. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the whole action of the 1st respondent management is mala fide; that he is a protected workman as contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; that when the petitioner joined the Porcelains unit there was only one establishment and transfer was not one of the conditions of service inasmuch as there was only one unit and therefore such a power could not be availed of by the management either on account of express or implied conditions. The learned counsel for the petitioner in this context relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Kundan Sugar Mills v Ziya Uddin and Others, AIR 1960 SC 650 and also on another decision of the Supreme Court in SA.E. Distribution Co. Ltd. v N.K. Mohd. Khan, 1970(21) FLR 174. It is also submitted that there has been a settlement between the management and the Association of which the petitioner is a member and that settlement though provides for transfer from one place to another, is not part of the Standing Orders; that the same has not been finalised inasmuch as an appeal is still pending against the said Standing Orders; that in the absence of centralised service the transfer is bad as per the decision of the Supreme Court in General Officer Commanding-in-Chief and Anotfter v Dr.Subhash Chandra Yadav and Another, 1988(2) Labour Law Journal 345; that the transfer effected results in victimisation as the same was made mala fide and referred to decision in The State of Punjab and Another v Gurdial Singh and Others, AIR 1980 SC 319; P. Pushpakaran v Coir Board and Another, 1979(1) Labour Law Journal 139 and P. Krishna Rao v The APCCAD Bank Ltd., 1984 Lab. I.C. 131.
(3.) The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the BHEL acquired the unit in the year 1976 as its subsidiary and became fully owned in the year 1980; that in the year 1976 a settlement was reached and in fact a Standing Orders was also made to that effect; that whatever may have been the service conditions at the time of employment of the petitioner, consequent upon the taking over of the said unit by the BHEL and settlement having been entered into in 1977 which empowers the management to transfer an employee from one place to another as part of the settlement giving better benefits resulting in rationalisation of service conditions in all its units, the employee cannot now turn round and contend that the management has no such power to transfer. An elaborate Statement of Objections has been filed to demonstrate that there are no mala fides on the part of the management in transferring the petitioner from Bangalore unit to Jagadishpur unit and all these units being under one employer the question of centralised service does not arise to give effect to transfers from one place to another. It is also pointed out that transfer is an incident of service and therefore the management has full and complete powers in this regard; that whatever disciplinary action and other steps taken earlier have not influenced the management in transferring the petitioner but only in the interests of the organisation the petitioner has been transferred and he relied upon the following decisions. i. (1977)50 FJR 197, Caravan Goods Carriers Private Ltd. v Labour Court Madras; ii. 28 FJR 275, Syndicate Bank v Their Workmen; iii. (1991)1 Kar. L.J. 30, Syndicate Bank v Sunder K. Paniyadi; iv. 1985(1) LLJ 198, C.E. (Pers) T.N.E.B. v K. Raman; v. 1986(1) Labour Law Journal 464, Shanmugam v Mysore Mineral Ltd.; vi. AIR 1989 SC 1433, Gujarat Electricity Board and Another v Atmaram Sungomal Poshani; and vii. 76 FJR 73, Indian Oil Corporation vJt. Chief Labour Commissioner.;