Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.22 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
M/S. Pearlite Liners Pvt. Ltd vs Manorama Sirsi on 6 January, 2004
9. Further, he submitted that transfer is incidental to the appointment and in this regard, he relied on a decision in the matter of Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd. v. Manorama Sirsi. Referring to Page 1153 para-10 of the said judgment, learned Senior Counsel submitted that, unless there is a term to the contrary in the contract of service, a transfer order is a normal incidence of service. Further he submitted that even in case where a workman does not comply with the transfer order, it may ultimately lead to termination of service. In such case also, the Apex Court has declined to hold that the transfer is illegal or void and further held that since the transfer being incidental to the appointment, workman is required to obey the said order.
B.D.K. Process Controls Private Ltd. ... vs Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangha on 5 July, 2005
He also relied on another decision reported in 2006-II-LLJ page 151 in the matter of B.D.K. Process Controls Private Limited and Anr. v. Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangha and submitted that, transfer between one Company and another Company is being two different entities, is impermissible in law. By relying on these judgments, learned Counsel submitted that the order of Tribunal does not call for interference.
Section 9A in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Monthly-Rated Workmen At The ... vs Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd., Bombay on 11 April, 1986
13. He further referred to the findings of the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal considering these matters has arrived at a conclusion that prima facie, the older of transfer is violative of Section 33 of the Act and has confirmed the order dated 7.12.2006. He also referred to 2 or 3 instances of transfer, winch were based on the request of the employee and not based on the condition of service in this regard, he relied on a judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1986 (1) LLJ 520 in the matter of The Monthly Rated Workmen of Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Limited, Bombay and submitted that, the Management is not justified in trying to upset a scheme that had worked satisfactorily for a period of 18 years and there has been no change in the existing system. He further submitted that the existing system, which is prevailing, has to be continued and the Apex Court in the said decision has upheld the contention to protect the workmen's right in respect of the existing scheme and the system, which has been working satisfactorily. He further submitted that, in this case also, the existing system of not transferring the employees has been working and there is no reason for the petitioner to transfer the employees.
India Security Press Mazdoor Sangh vs Currency Note Press And Ors. on 7 September, 1987
8. He further submitted that custom does not mean that the Management having not transferred, it automatically becomes a custom not to transfer. In this regard, he relied on a decision of Division Bench of Bombay High Court reported in 1993(3) LLJ (Suppl.) page 58 in the matter of India Security Press Mazdoor Sangh v. Currency Note Press, Nasik Road and Ors. He referred to para-4 of the said judgment and submitted that, even in case where the current working hours had become their condition of service by custom or usage of over 10 years and that privilege cannot be taken away by a mere notice of change under Section 9A of the Act, was not accepted by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court and further solely because for a length of time of whatever duration, the shifts were so arranged as to include also the overtime hours of work that would not confer on the workman a right to overtime work Learned Senior Counsel submitted that just because there was practice for many years even in the case referred to above, the Division Bench of Bombay High Court has negatived the contention of the workman to hold that, it is the custom and the rights and privilege are conferred on them.
1