Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. The workman in his rejoinder statement has claimed this transfer to be a contrivance and a device to terminate his services. He claims the transfer to be an instance of unfair labour practice which the Employers took resort to, in order to get rid of him in an insidious manner. The Employers, according to the workman, harboured malice and ill-will against him for his activities in the trade Union. On this account by a stratagem of transferring him to a station as far off as Mumbai, for a low paid workman like him domiciled in Gautam Budh Nagar, they have effectively terminated his services. The transfer, vide order dated 10.02.1996, has been impeached by the workman as unlawful. It appears also that the workman urged before the Labour Court that in the Certified Standing Orders of the Employers, that are said to be certified under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (for short, the Act of 1946), there is provision for transfer of a workman, but under the Model Standing Orders framed under the Act of 1946, there is no provision for the transfer of a workman from one State to another without his consent. It was also urged before the Labour Court on behalf of the workman that if any provision about 'transfer' has been incorporated in the Certified Standing Orders of the Employers, it would be illegal and not binding on the workman. He relied on authority also in support of the said proposition.

17. It is recorded by the Labour Court that the Employers have also said that by not complying the transfer order, the workman has abandoned his post. About this stand, the Labour Court has held that it is not at all tenable. It has also been remarked by the Labour Court that the Employers have not brought to its notice any rule or provision in the Act, to show that the transfer is a part of the workman's service conditions. It has also been held that contrary to the Employers' stand, the Model Standing Orders, 1991 vide Clause 13(6) clearly provide that without the workman's consent, he cannot be transferred from one State to another. It has been concluded, therefore, that the workman's transfer is an instance of unfair labour practice, contrary to law and the rules, where the workman has been illegally transferred by the Employers to a far off unit located at Mumbai. It has also been held that the act of the Employers in not passing a speaking order on the workman's representation against the transfer, the Employer's refusal to take the workman back in employment, the Employer's failure to give the workman a warning to present himself for duties, or to seek his explanation followed by the disciplinary proceedings on charges of unauthorized absence, and, taking the workman's stand about his transfer to be an abandonment of service, amounts to retrenchment with effect from 10.02.1996.

22. It is submitted further that it is not that the Certified Standing Orders have introduced a service condition about transfer unauthorisedly. Transfer is one of the conditions of service postulated under clause (4) of the 'MODEL STANDING ORDERS ON ADDITIONAL ITEMS APPLICABLE TO ALL INDUSTRIES', detailed in Schedule 1-B to the Rules of 1946. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Employers that the only restriction under clause (4) of the Model Standing Orders, carried in Schedule 1-B, last mentioned is that such transfer, in case of an inter-State transfer, can either take place with the consent of the workman, or in case there is a specific provision to that effect in the workman's appointment letter. The transfer when made in either of two contingencies is also subject to reasonable notice to the workman and allowance of reasonable time to join at the other station. The workman is also entitled to receive travelling allowance, including transport charges etc.

38. It may be true or otherwise that under the Certified Standing Orders, the Employers have power to transfer the workman away to the unit at Mumbai. The Model Standing Orders, 1991, if they apply in preference to the Certified Standing Orders, may or may not permit a transfer for the workman outside the State without his consent. This Court, however, would refrain from expressing any opinion about the issue. The reason is that the Labour Court is a Court of referred jurisdiction and a creature of the statute. Its jurisdiction is limited to answering questions that are expressly referred to it under Section 2-K of the Act. It may, however, go into incidental questions while answering the reference.