MOTOR SALES SERVICE STATION Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT
LAWS(ALL)-1980-3-4
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (AT: LUCKNOW)
Decided on March 27,1980

MOTOR SALES SERVICE STATION Appellant
VERSUS
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.N.Goyal, J. - (1.) This is an employer's writ petition directed against an award of Labour Court. Opposite-party No. 3 was a workman employed with the petitioner in his concern of Lucknow. One of the conditions of his employment, as mentioned in his appointment letter, was that he was liable to be transferred to any of the sister concerns of the petitioner in the State of Uttar Pradesh without any additional benefits to him during his services with the company. In terms of this condition, the petitioner passed an order of transfer on 10-5-1973. The opposite-party on receipt of this order first obtained leave from the petitioner and thereafter declined to join at Phaphamau where he was to go on transfer. The opposite-party tried to join again at Lucknow itself with the petitioner, but the petitioner struck off his name from the muster-roll. Thereupon at the instance of the Workmen's Union, opposite-party No. 2, the State Government, opposite-party No. 4, referred an industrial dispute to the Labour Court, The subject of reference was as to whether the transfer order was valid or not and if not what relief was the workman entitled to. The Labour Court held the order to be invalid on the ground that the purported transfer was to a concern owned by different proprietor. While the petitioner was a proprietary concern, the other concern to which the workman was sought to be transferred was a limited company in which, the proprietor of the petitioner was a Director. On this finding the Labour Court ordered the reinstatement of the workman with back wages,
(2.) It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Workmen's Union itself had arrived at a settlement with the petitioner agreeing that the workmen were liable to transfer to certain concerns named in the settlement, including the concern to which the opposite-party No. 3 was sought to be transferred. According to the petitioner, the Labour Court acted illegally in disregarding this settlement.
(3.) The petition has been contested by the individual workman. The other opposite-parties did not enter appearance.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.