Employer challenged a Single Judge order granting Section 17-B wages to a terminated workman, contending his posting at Laksar, Uttarakhand amounted to reinstatement. The Division Bench held transfer to another location is not reinstatement at the original place, restored status quo not achieved, dismissed the appeal with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:36413-DB WA No. 604 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT APPEAL NO. 604 OF 2023 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
JK TYRE & INDUSTRIES LTD KRS ROAD, METAGALLI MYSURU-570 014 REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER- HR, IR & EHS, SRI. JAGADESH.R AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, (REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT.)
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
SRI. SRINATH B.C S/O CHANDRASHEKARA B.G. AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, C/O MYSORE DIVISION, GENERAL EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION R.NO.3, 1ST FLOOR, PAI COMPLEX, CHANDRAGUPTA ROAD, BEHIND SANTHOSH HOTEL, MYSORE- 570 009.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY K.B, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17/04/2023 IN WP NO.519/2023 FOR PAYMENT OF 17B WAGES AND CONSEQUENTLY PASS SUCH OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)
The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 17.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No.519/2023 whereby the learned Single Judge on an application filed by the respondent herein being I.A.No.1/2023 which is an application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) seeking wages pending disposal of the writ petition, had allowed the same in favour of the respondent herein.
contested by the appellant herein by stating that the respondent has been reinstated by posting him at Laksar, Haridwar District, Uttarakand State. As such, the respondent is not entitled to the benefit of wages under Section 17-B of the Act.
under Section 17-B of the Act. Mr. Somashekar, also states that the appellant is within its right to transfer the respondent to Laksar, Uttarakhand when there is a clear stipulation in the terms of appointment that the respondent has all India transfer liability.
Ltd., Vs. General Secretary, All India Vysya Bank Employees’ Union, Bangalore and Ors. reported in 1996 (1) LLJ 420 (Kar.DB) , more specifically paragraphs 7 and 8 thereof. He also relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Divgi Metal Wares Ltd., Vs. Divgi Metal Wares Employees Association and Ors., reported in AIR 2024 SC 1686 , more specifically at paragraphs Nos.11, 12, 14, 23 and 25 in support of his contention that the employer has a right to transfer an employee, if such a stipulation exists in the appointment letter.
learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the reinstatement granted by the Industrial Tribunal shall
necessarily means restoring the status as was prevailing before the order of termination was passed which has been set aside by the Industrial Tribunal. In other words, it is his submission that since the respondent was terminated while he was working in Mysuru, the appellant must reinstate the respondent at Mysuru. Though he conceded that there is a stipulation for being posted anywhere in the Country, the respondent having been held to be a workman by the Industrial Tribunal, he cannot be transferred out of Mysuru. He also states that the respondent has already filed an application before the concerned Assistant Labour Commissioner challenging his transfer to Laksar, Uttarakhand.
Ors. reported in Manu/TN/1021/1996 , more specifically paragraph 11 thereof, wherein the Division Bench of Madras High Court has held that when there is an award directing the Management to reinstate a workman, it is not possible for the Management to say that they will transfer him from the place where he was originally working to a new place. He also relies upon the judgment in the case of Patil Veershetty Vs. the Management and Ors. in W.M.P.3730/2021 in W.P.No.10833/2020 , more specifically paragraph 7 thereof.
the short issue that arises for consideration is the following:
“Whether pursuant to the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, the appellant is required to reinstate the respondent at Mysuru before transferring him to Laksar, Uttarakhand or the appellant is within its right to reinstate the respondent by posting him to Laksar?”
the judgments as relied upon by Mr. Somasekhar.
so, is concerned, there cannot be any dispute insofar as that proposition of law is concerned . Apparently, on perusal of the appointment letter issued to the respondent, there is such a stipulation inasmuch as the respondent is liable to be transferred anywhere in India to any office/establishment/branch/mill of the Company and/or any member concern of JK Organization.
the judgments relied upon by Mr. K.B.Narayana Swamy, shall cover the issue infavour of the respondent. In the case of Patil Veershetty (supra) , the Madras High Court, has at paragraph-7, held as under:
“7. The ratios held in the aforesaid decisions clearly indicates that when the Management chooses to reinstate any of their workmen, such a reinstatement can only be at the place of the concerned workman's original employment, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase and P.D. Sharma's cases (Supra). Likewise, it will not be open to the Management to reinstate a workman by transferring him to another place from his original place of employment, which ratio had been held by the Hon’ble Division Bench in Lakshmi Mills’ case (supra). When the dismissal order itself becomes ab-initio-void in view of the rejection of the Approval Petition, reinstating the workman by transferring him some other place, other than his original place of employment, is an illegal action and totally contrary to the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision.”
the appellant was within its right to provide employment to the respondent in lieu of wages under Section 17-B of the Act, but the fact remains that the appellant, instead of reinstating the respondent at Mysuru, transferred him to Laksar, which is in Uttarakhand. In that sense, the status as was existing before the service of the respondent was terminated has not been restored as is required in view of the Judgment referred
above. So we are of the view that the conclusion of the learned Single Judge in the impugned order that the transfer shall not be deemed to be reinstatement cannot be interfered with. We
find no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/(V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE
Sd/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE
KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24
1 issue framed by the court
Whether reinstatement under an Industrial Tribunal award must be at the workman's original place of employment before any transfer, or whether posting elsewhere satisfies Section 17-B.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vysya Bank Ltd. Vs. General Secretary, All India Vysya Bank Employees Union, Bangalore and Ors.Referred¶11
1996 (1) LLJ 420 (Kar.DB)
Divgi Metal Wares Ltd. Vs. Divgi Metal Wares Employees Association and Ors.Referred¶10
AIR 2024 SC 1686 · Who else cites this
Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and othersRelied on¶13
(2013) 10 SCC 324 · Who else cites this
The Management of the Lakshmi Mills Ltd. Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Ors.Relied on¶12
Manu/TN/1021/1996
Patil Veershetty Vs. The Management and Ors.Relied on¶12
W.M.P.No.3730/2021 in W.P.No.10833/2020
2 provisions across 2 enactments
JK Tyre & Industries Ltd
Srinath B.C
V KAMESWAR RAO
RAJESH RAI K
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
