The Management of Vs v.Johnpaul — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

The Management of Vs v.Johnpaul — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the clause in the appointment order providing for transfer is in conflict with the Model Standing Orders. +2 more

Court's answer

The management cannot introduce a condition of service which is not stipulated in the schedule to the Standing Orders Act; since the Model Standing Orders do not provide for transfer, the transfer clause inserted in the appointment letters is necessarily declared null and void.

Ratio / Principle

Certifying authorities have no jurisdiction to approve standing-order provisions falling outside the items of the Schedule to the Standing Orders Act; the learned Judges gave their stamp of approval to the non-inclusion of transfer in draft standing orders because 'transfer' is not a scheduled item (following the five-bench Rohtak judgment and India Cements).

Key takeaways

Considering the sequence in which the transfers took place (issued after the union initiated conciliation proceedings, together with appointment orders carrying the transfer clause), this Court concludes the transfer is a mala fide one and not backed by legal authority.ratio¶196
The issuance of the appointment orders incorporating the transfer clause while the conciliation dispute was pending effected a change in the conditions of service of the workmen without any prior notice to them and without obtaining the approval of the Conciliation Officer.ratio¶137
The Labour Court rightly considered the judgments and the position of law to hold the dismissal illegal and to order reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits; accordingly, the management's writ petitions are dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petitions by the Management of M/s.Soundarya Decorators Private Limited challenging the common Award dated 28.02.2024 of the Labour Court, Kancheepuram in I.D.Nos.156, 157 and 155 of 2019, which set aside the dismissal of three carpenter-workmen and directed reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits — dismissed (P.T. Asha, J.; reserved 16.07.2025, pronounced 20.08.2025). The workmen were appointed in 2001, 2002 and 2011, when only the Model Standing Orders under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules 1947 operated and no appointment letters existed; appointment letters dated 03.07.2017 introducing a transfer clause (Clause 5) were issued while the union's conciliation demand pending since 26.07.2016 continued, without the Conciliation Officer's approval or prior notice of change in conditions of service. Drawing on the five-bench judgment in Rohtak & Hissar Districts Electric Supply Co. v. State of U.P. (1965 SCC OnLine SC 75, also cited as 1966-2-LLJ 330), India Cements v. Labour Court, Madurai (1993-2-LLN 682) and Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh v. M/s. Jet Airways Ltd. (2023-4-LLJ-42-SC), the Court held that certified standing orders carry statutory force, that no condition of service outside the Schedule to the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 may be introduced except through the procedure prescribed under the Act and Rules (Section 15), that 'transfer' is not a scheduled item so that the Certifying Officer cannot approve it, and therefore the appointment-letter transfer clause is null and void; the timing of the transfers showed mala fides (cf. P. Pushpakaran v. Chairman, Coir Board, (1978) 2 LLN 235), and the transfer was held mala fide and not backed by legal authority. Precedents cited by management's counsel — Cipla v. Jayakumar ((1999) 1 SCC 300), Divgi Metal Wares (2024 SCC OnLine SC 366) and Union of India v. K. Suri Babu ((2023) 18 SCC 461) — were set out but the Court's reasoning rested on the foregoing authorities. Writs dismissed with no costs; connected W.M.P.Nos.1639, 1641 and 1642 of 2025 closed.