Disposed

The Workmen of Tafe Employees Union v. Management of Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2024WP/5651/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Labour Court's dismissal of a complaint alleging victimization via illegal transfers. The High Court upheld the dismissal, ruling that transfers were valid under contract terms and did not alter service conditions. However, granting a settlement of Rs. 5 lakhs each to three specific workmen who had not joined the new posts for 29 years to end the litigation.

What did the court decide?

Labor Court award confirmed; Rs. 5,00,000 compensation awarded to each of three specific workmen failing to join transferred posts.

The Workmen of Tafe Employees Union Vs… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38056 WP No. 5651 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 5651 OF 2012 (L-RES)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

THE WORKMEN OF TAFE EMPLOYEES UNION, NO. 24, MADHUVANTHI CHIKKABOMMASANDRA, G.K.V.K. POST, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE 560 065, REP. BY THE SECRETARY

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. B.D. KUTTAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶8

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

MANAGEMENT OF TRACTORS AND FARM EQUIPMENT LIMITED (TAFE) PLOT NO.1, K.I.A.D.B. (TRACTOR DIVISION) INDUSTRIAL AREA, DODDABALLAPURA, REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER

¶10

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. K. KASTURI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K. SUBHA ANANTHI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER IN COMPLAINT NO.1/96 CONNECTED WITH COMPLAINT NO.1/1998 ON THE FILE OF LABOUR COURT AT BANGALORE.

¶12

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶13

¶14

NC: 2024:KHC:38056 WP No. 5651 of 2012

¶15

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶16

ORAL ORDER

¶17

The workmen of TAFE Employees Union are before

¶18

this Court assailing the legality and correctness of the order/award dated 20.04.2010 in Complaint No.1/1996 on the file of the Labour Court, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Labour Court’ for short) dismissing the complaint filed under Section 33(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘ID Act’ for short).

¶19

Complaint came to be filed under Section 33(A) of the ID Act in respect of 07 employees viz., T.B.Mahadeva, G.N.Yogananda, K.Koragappa Poojari, H.K.Umesh, H.Muniyappa, H.Venkateshachar and Gopalakrishna. The complaint was continued against K.Koragappa Poojari, Ramesh Desai and H.Muniyappa and in respect of other complainants, the dispute appears to have been settled.

¶20

Originally complaint was filed by the Union in

¶21

respect of 07 employees under Section 33(A) of the ID Act

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38056 WP No. 5651 of 2012

¶23

contending that the transfer of employees to different places is on account of victimization and the transfer orders are mala fide and that too when several charter of demands are pending in Ref.No.27/1996, the employees who were acting members of the Trade Union have been transferred.

¶24

The Management filed counter, inter alia, contending that the complaint does not indicate or disclose as to how there has been contravention of Section 33 of the ID Act warranting filing of complaint under Section 33(A) of the ID Act. Transfer being the condition of service, the complainant cannot allege that if the condition of service is enforced, it amounts to change in the condition of service; that the certified standing orders provide for transfer vide clause No.12 and the Company is justified in effecting the transfers. Further, that, every year the employees are shuffled amongst various departments so that they can gain experience in business and the allegation of unfair labour practice and

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:38056 WP No. 5651 of 2012

¶27

victimization raised by the complainant is to give color to the transfer.

¶28

Before the Labour Court, complainant examined

¶29

the Vice President of the Union as AW.1 and the employees were examined as C.Ws.2 to 5 and in support of their contention, Exs.A.1 to A.35 were marked. The Management examined the Manager-Personnel as R.W.1 and marked documents at Exs.R.1 to R.40. The Labour Court, by the impugned order held that :

¶30

i) the complainant failed to prove that by effecting their transfers, the management has changed their service conditions under Section 33 of the I.D.Act ;

¶31

ii) the complainant failed to prove that their grievance under Section 33(A) of the ID Act needs any consideration and

¶32

iii) that there is no victimization and change of service conditions in the light of transfers, and thereby dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 33(A) of I.D. Act.

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38056 WP No. 5651 of 2012

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶35

would urge the following grounds:

¶36

i) That the standing orders and the appointment orders of the petitioner-Union are in conflict with each other;

¶37

ii) That the Labour Court has not appreciated the

¶38

fact that there is change in service condition of the employees during the pendency of Reference No.27/1996 and the Labour Court has not taken into consideration the points, which were canvassed by the petitioners.

¶39

iii) Taking this Court to Annexures - B, D and F would contend that the transfer as well as nature of work as stated in the transfer order is totally different. The very transfer is illegal as the employees were not trained to do any work except the assembling and in the transferred place in respect of the workman, they are required to do a totally different work and asked to perform the work which is very different from the one which they are doing at Doddaballapur plant and that there is a change in the service condition.

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38056 WP No. 5651 of 2012

¶41

iv) That the transfer is illegal because the

¶42

employer, where they are asked to work is a different independent employer and it is not permitted to transfer to a different employer.

¶43

v) That the standing order, more particularly, at clause No.12 is not properly interpreted by the Labour Court while dismissing the application filed by the petitioner.

¶44

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments :

¶45

(i) Kundan Sugar Mills vs. Ziyauddin and Ors.¹ (Ziyauddin)

¶46

(ii) BCPP Mazdoor Sangh and Anr. vs. N.T.P.C. and Ors .² (BCPP Mazdoor Sangh)

¶47

Per contra , Sri K. Kasturi, learned senior

¶48

counsel, appearing for the respondent-Management would contend that :

¶49

1 AIR 1960 SC 650

¶50

2 AIR 2008 SC 336

¶51

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:38056 WP No. 5651 of 2012

¶52

i) The complaint does not disclose as to how there

¶53

has been a contravention of Section 33 of the ID Act warranting filing of complaint under Section 33A of the ID Act.

¶54

ii) Violation of conditions of service is a precondition to file a complaint under Section 33A of the ID Act which is totally absent in the present facts.

¶55

iii) Taking this Court to the cross-examination of WW.1, learned Senior counsel submits that the workman has categorically admitted that there was cordial relationship of the employees with that of the Management and the transfer was not rebutted by the employees.

¶56

iv) The certified standing orders provide for transfer vide clause 12 of the certified Standing Orders and the Company was justified in effecting transfers and taking the Court to the confirmation orders issued to each individual employees and submits that in the order, there is a clause of transfer and their service being liable for transfer to any place within India where the Company has

¶57

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:38056 WP No. 5651 of 2012

¶58

business interest, directly or indirectly and the employees

¶59

have accepted the order of transfer.

¶60

Learned Senior Counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance on the following decisions :

¶61

(i) Cipla Ltd. vs. Jayakumar & Another³ ( Cipla Ltd.)

¶62

(ii) Gujarat Electricity Board & Another vs.

¶63

Atmaram Sungomal Poshani⁴ (Gujarat Electricity Board))

¶64

(iii) Syndicate Bank vs. Sundar K Paniyadi & another⁵ (Syndicate Bank)

¶65

This Court has carefully perused the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for the parties and having heard, the only point that arises for consideration is :

¶66

"Whether the award passed by the Labour Court warrants any interference in the present facts and circumstances of the case ?"

¶67

3 (1999)1 SCC 300

¶68

4 (FJR vol.75 page 83)

¶69

5 1991(1) LLN 358

¶70

¶71

NC: 2024:KHC:38056 WP No. 5651 of 2012

¶72

The complainant contended that, transfer

¶73

effected by the Management is in contravention of Section 33 of the ID Act warranting workmen to file complaint under Section 33(A) of the ID Act. The Management contended that the complaint does not disclose as to how there has been a contravention of Section 33 of the ID Act warranting workmen to file complaint under Section 33A of the ID Act, as transfer is a condition of service and the specific grounds urged by the Management were:

¶74

i) That the Tractor Division of TAFE was established to cater the needs of farmers in Karnataka Region and the dealers in Karnataka through whom the tractors are supplied to the farmers, who come for procurement of tractors wanted that the factory trained employees should be placed at the dealer’s point to explain and convince the farmers about the salient features of that are distinct for TAFE Tractors;

¶75

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:38056 WP No. 5651 of 2012

¶76

ii) That, only by placing a factory trained employee at the dealer's place, the farmers can understand the quality, service of tractors and etc., and competitors of similarly placed companies have trained employees at the dealers point;

¶77

iii) That only the factory trained employee can effectively be able to impress the prospective customers about the quality of Management's tractors and be able to attend to any minor defects or report to the company effectively about customers’ needs; and

¶78

iv) That in light of the pressure from the dealers and in the present day competitive environment, keeping in mind the overall interests of all, had to agree to the wishes of the dealers and after detailed deliberations, the Management decided to move some of the employees to the Service Centre to assist the dealers.

¶79

Heard learned counsel on both sides and perused the material on record.

¶80

11 -

¶81

NC: 2024:KHC:38056 WP No. 5651 of 2012

¶82

The Certified Standing orders provide for

¶83

transfer and Clause 12 of Certified Standing Orders reads as under :

¶84

"12. An employee may be transferred from one Department to another or from one section to another, or from one shift to another within the Factory, provided such transfers do not involve a reduction in his existing emoluments or grade. Refusal to obey such orders shall be construed to be misconduct and dealt with as such. Whenever there is insufficient work in their respective section or any other valid reasons, if an employee is required to work in jobs other than his own, he shall not refuse to do so.

¶85

All work of whatever nature done in the company premises or for the company must be considered dignified. The employees are also liable to be transferred to any of the Branches, ancillary/subsidiaries of any Company of its Group, or service centres, show rooms godowns etc. within the State of Karnataka. Refusal on the part of the employee to go on such transfers will be treated misconduct and the Manager will proceed against the employees accordingly.

¶86

12 -

¶87

NC: 2024:KHC:38056 WP No. 5651 of 2012

¶88

The confirmation order was issued to each

¶89

individual providing a clause on transfer which reads as under:

¶90

"Your services are liable to transfer to any place within India where this Company may have business interest either directly or indirectly. You will have to abide by the Standing Orders and/or other Rules and Regulations of the Company in force from time to time."

¶91

Confirmation order was accepted by the employees and having accepted the order of transfers and having been working at several places in the State, the respondent-Management in the exigency of work transferred some of the employees. Reference No.27/1996 pertaining to the Charter of Demands raised by the Union was pending, the workmen who were transferred in light of the exigency stated therein, did not report to work at the transferred place. The transfer of employees from one place to another is an incidence of service and as a condition of service, employees have no choice in the matter. The nature of work done by the employees in the

¶92

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:38056 WP No. 5651 of 2012

¶93

Company and the work to be done in the transferred place is identical in light of meeting demands of the contractor and that the contention of the petitioner that the nature of work is totally different to the place of transfer is unacceptable. In light of transfer being an incidence of service, as stated supra, salary and benefits remained the same even in the transferred place and the question of changed condition does not arise. Section 33(A) of the ID Act provides for relief to the aggrieved workmen, the precondition is, violation of condition of service. In the instant case, the clause in the confirmation order is to the effect that the workman is liable to be transferred to another place within India where this Company may have business interest either directly or indirectly and the workman/employee have to abide by the standing orders and the Rules and Regulations of the Company in force. The confirmation order is not in conflict with the general terms as stipulated in clause 12 in the standing orders which mentions about the transfer from one establishment

¶94

14 -

¶95

NC: 2024:KHC:38056 WP No. 5651 of 2012

¶96

to another, which transfer would not be attracted by the provisions of Section 33A of the ID Act.

¶97

Mr.Jagadish Habbu, Manager (Personnel) in his examination-in-chief has produced Ex.R.14, copy of the award in I.D.No.146/99 to indicate about the incentives being given to the transferred employee, which is marked as Exs.R.15 to R.19 and Exs.R.20 to 24.

¶98

The Apex Court in the case of Cipla Ltd ., cited supra in identical circumstances has held at paragraph No.12 as under :

¶99

"12. In our opinion, the aforesaid construction does not flow from the cprovisions of the Standing Orders when read along with the letter of appointment and, therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the High Court was not correct. As has already been noticed the letter of appointment contains both the terms namely for the respondent being transferable from Bangalore as well as with regard to the applicability of the Standing Orders. These clauses, namely, clauses 3 and 11, have to be read along with the Standing Orders, the relevant portion of which has been quoted hereinabove. Reading the three together we do not find that there is any

¶100

15 - NC: 2024:KHC:38056 WP No. 5651 of 2012

¶101

conflict as has been sought to be canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent. Whereas the Standing Orders provide for the department wherein a workman may be asked to work within the establishment itself at Bangalore, clause 3 of the letter of appointment, on the other hand, gives the right to the appellant to transfer a workman from the establishment at Bangalore to any other establishment of the Company in India. Therefore, as long as the respondent was serving at Bangalore he could be transferred from one department to another only in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders but the Standing Orders do not in any way refer to or prohibit the transfer of a workman from one establishment of the appellant to another. There is thus no conflict between the said clauses."

¶102

The Apex Court, in Cipla Ltd., has observed

¶103

that the provision for transfer as contained in the letter of appointment was not in conflict with that contained in the Standing Orders and inter-establishment transfer of such an employee held not violative of the standing orders and employee's complaint under Section 33-A of the ID Act complaining against such transfer was dismissed and held

¶104

16 - NC: 2024:KHC:38056 WP No. 5651 of 2012

¶105

that the transfer of the employee was valid and there was no alteration in the service conditions as alleged by the complainant.

¶106

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per clause 12 of the Standing Orders, the enquiry has to be conducted if the employee has refused to go on such transfer.

¶107

Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-Management submits that as per Clause 12 of the Standing Orders, refusal on the part of the employee to go on transfer will be treated as a misconduct and the Management will proceed against the employee accordingly by holding an enquiry.

¶108

Three employees have not joined the place of transfer and almost 29 years have lapsed. Statement of objections and the appointment orders clearly indicate effecting of transfer. The Labour Court by the impugned order has rightly held that there is no provision in Section 33 of the ID Act for alteration of any conditions of service

¶109

17 - NC: 2024:KHC:38056 WP No. 5651 of 2012

¶110

applicable for the workmen to file an application under Section 33A of the ID Act and the allegation of change in service condition under transfer is without any justification.

¶111

For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Labour Court after considering all the material on record, has rightly dismissed the complaint. Hence, the point raised for consideration is answered against the petitioner holding that the award passed by the Labour Court does not warrant any interference.

¶112

At this stage, learned counsel for the

¶113

respondent brings to the notice of this Court that settlement has been arrived in respect of other workmen viz., H.K.Umesh, T.B.Mahadeva G.N.Yogananda and Gopalakrishna, wherein, the matter has been settled by paying compensation from Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.7,50,000/-.

¶114

In the present case, the workmen, viz., K.Koragappa Poojari, Ramesh Desai and H.Muniyappa

¶115

18 -

¶116

NC: 2024:KHC:38056 WP No. 5651 of 2012

¶117

having not joined the Company after the order of transfer, which is for more than 29 years, however, taking note of the fact that similarly placed workmen were given compensation, to give a quietus to the litigation. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, this Court feels it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each to the workers as full and final settlement of their claim. Hence, this Court pass the following:

¶118

ORDER

¶119

(i) Writ petition is disposed of .

¶120

(ii) The impugned order passed by the Labour Court stands confirmed .

¶121

(iii) Compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to be paid to each of the workers viz., K.Koragappa Poojari, Ramesh Desai and H.Muniyappa within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶122

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶123

¶124

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

The Workmen of Tafe Employees Union v. Management of Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Workmen of Tafe Employees Union v. Management of Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. C. Ramalingappa Vs Vijaya @ Viji

Sri Boraiah Vs Sri Malleshaiah Alias Mallesha

Smt. Rajamma Vs Sri. v. Krishnamurthy

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs R P Dayanandasagar

M/S Automotive Axles Ltd. Vs Sri a Syed Shabeeruddin

Ashaunnisa Vs Divisional Controller Ksrtc