MADHUBAND COLLIERY Vs. THEIR WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is brought, by special leave, from the award dated 9 March, 1963, by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, in Reference No. 25 of 1962, published in the Gazette of India dated 8 June, 1963.

(2.) THE respondent, Sardar Jagir Singh, was appointed as a welfare officer under training on 30 July, 1956 at Madhuband Colliery by Karam Chand Thapar & Bros., Ltd., who are the managing agents of that colliery. By an order dated 14 September, 1959 the respondent was transferred to Central Sounda Colliery to work in the same capacity and without affecting his service conditions in any way. The case of the management of Madhuband Colliery (hereinafter called the management) was that the respondent refused to obey the order of transfer in spite of repeated chances being given to him and so by a letter dated 9 December, 1959 the respondent was dismissed. It was further stated on behalf of the management that the terms of service of the respondent were governed by service rules of Karam Chand Thapar & Bros., Ltd., Ex. M., and as there was a wilful disobedience of the order of transfer, the order of dismissal of the respondent, was justified. The case of the respondent, on the contrary, was that the transfer order was mala fide and the management intended to victimize him for his trade union activities. The case of the respondent was taken up by Hindustan Khan Mazdoor Sangh and on 9 August, 1962 the Government of India referred the following disputes for adjudication under S. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad :

(3.) IT is manifest that Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. were lawfully entitled to transfer the respondent from Madhuband Colliery to Central Sounda Colliery on 14 September, 1959 under rule 4(b) of the service rules, Ex. M, which were the relevant rules applicable to the case of the respondent. In this connexion we may add that in his representation, Ex. M. 5, to which we will presently refer, the respondent expressly admitted that these rules applied to him and based his claim on them.