meeting of Krishnagiri Motor Workers' Union, among whose A members 112 out of 170 were employees of the Company. Selvaraj filed a statement of claims before the Conciliation Officer on September I, 1960. The Conciliation Officer reported to the Government that the conciliation proceedings had failed, and thereupon the State Government by its order dated N ovembcr I, 1960, made in exercise of the powers conferred B by cl. (c) of sub-s. (I) of s. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947)-hereinafter referred to as the Act-referred for adjudication by the Labour Court, Bangalore, the following points in dispute :- "I. Whether the order of the management of Sri Rangavilas Motor (Private) Ltd., in transferring the workman c Sri R. Mahalingam, Foreman, from their branch at Fort, Bangalore, to Krishnagiri, is illegal or uajustificd. If so, is the workman entitled to reinstatement in Bangalore Branch with benefits of back wages or to any other relief ? 2. Is Sri R. Mahalingam, Foreman, entitled to arrears D of increments and overtime wages, if so, what is the amount he is entitled to ? Selvaraj, inter alia. prayed in his statement of claims, filed on behalf of Mahalingam, as follows :- ..... .it is prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the second party (the Company) to cause E the payment of overtime wages due, increments due (as mentioned in the annexurc to this statement) as also the arrears of wages from 1-2-60 to 15-3-1960 and order payment of back wages with effect from the date of termination of service by setting aside the said order of termination and to reinstate the workman with continuity of F service." The Company, in reply, contended that the reference was limited only to the question of transfer, and hence no question of reinstatement or back wages could be adjud'.cated upon. Further, the Company contended that the reference was bad because it did not fall under any of the items enumerated in the Second Schedule G to the Act. It was also contended that the dispute was an individual dispute. One further objection was raised to the effect that the reference should have been made to the National Tribunal and not to the Labour Court.
