Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

THE respondent No.2's defense is based on the fact that Ghaziabad Unit and Kotdwara Unit are situated in the same State. These being situated in the same region, the annual leaves granted to one Unit would apply to the other unit. Supreme Court infact approved the order of the appellate authority regarding annual leave certified for "Ghaziabad Unit" of the Company. Moreover, in the meetings of the Joint Wage Negotiating Committee held at Bangalore on 28th, 29th and 30th April, and 2nd May,1989 it was resolved that a separate settlement would be executed with regard to annual leave. In this view of the mailer the alleged settlement of 20th July,1989 had no relevance nor any bearing so far as the matter covered under Clause 9.1 of the draft standing order was concerned. The question of annual leave had been left open. It ultimately got finalised before the Certifying Officer. Petitioner cannot, therefore, challenge the same now. Moreover, the draft standing order was pending before the Certifying Officer since 21st July,1988, whereas the settlement was arrived at on 20th July,1989, hence there was no relevancy of the alleged settlement in the facts of this case. The Ghaziabad unit as well as the Kotdwara unit being situated in the same State i.e. Uttar Pradesh, therefore for comparison purpose the terms and conditions as settled for Ghaziabad Unit would have a bearing on Kotdwara Unit. Number of annual leaves, as settled for Ghaziabad Unit which happens to be in the same Region, would automatically apply to the employees of Kotdwara unit. So far as transfer of employee from one Unit of the Company to another, the same cannot be done because each Unit of the company is a separate industrial undertaking having separate set of rules and regulations, therefore, without the consent of workman he cannot be transferred to another unit. It would be to his deleriment.

PARA5 of that letter: "YOUR duties will be allocated by the Management, i.e. you should he prepared to serve in any position and in any department of the company and in any shift allotted to your from time to time subject to provisions of Factory Legislations. You will be liable to serve in any part of India or abroad at the discretion of the Company, and this liability will also include transfer to any Site/Factory under Management of BEL."

(28) It is only after agreeing to this condition that appointment was made. Therefore, while certifying the Standing Order as proposed by the petitioner, the Certifying Officer ought to have taken note of this fact. Transfer is not only the exigency of service but an incident of service. Therefore, this right of the petitioner could not have been curtained by the Certifying Officer as well as by respondent No.1.The Certifying Officer restricted the transfer from one unit to another unit of the company depending on good and cogent reason and that there should be no economic loss. Respondent No.1, however, not only curtailed the right to transfer but made it subject to the consent of the workman. Since transfer is an incident of service the right of the management to transfer which formed part of service contract could notice made subject to consent. No workman will give consent and if the exigencies of the work require that he should be transferred then as per this Standing Order the petitioner would be helpless. The workman even though accepted the job with specific under standing that he could be transferred any where, but the respondent No. 1 without assigning any reason modified the same. Since all the units are under one company, therefore, it is difficult to understand how the respondent No. 1 and the Certifying Officer treated the employees of Kotdwara Unit only the employees of that unit and that on transfer being effected they would cease to be the employees of the company. Letter of appointment show it was issued by the company. It then allocate the employees for which unit they would work. Relevant extract of the same are reproduced as under;-