APOLLO TYERS LTD Vs. SEBASTIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises against the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 210 of 2000 on the file of Sub Court, Irinjalakuda. Original Suit is O.S. No. 2098 of 1999 of the Munsiff's Court, Irinjalakuda. The facts of the case are as follows:

(2.) The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that he is still a workman and continues to be a workman under the appellant defendant and entitled for wages and all other consequential benefits and for a further declaration that the order transferring him to West Bengal is irregular and illegal. According to him, he is one of the founder members of the trade union - Apollo Tyres Workers' Association. He was working as Radial Tyre Builder. As a trade union leader, he was stem in advocating for the better interest and welfare of the workers and naturally it led to expose the plaintiff to the ill-will of the management.

(3.) By 1999, the attitude of the management people against the plaintiff turned hostile. A false charge sheet was issued to the respondent alleging various misconducts. To facilitate an amicable settlement, the trade union had to agree that three workers including the respondent be transferred to the Cochin Office of the appellant on specific understanding that they shall be retransferred to Perambra within three months. On September 24, 1999, while the plaintiff was on E.S.I, leave, he received a communication dated September 22, 1999 to the effect that the Company has decided to promote him to the post of Junior Officer (Administration). According to the respondent, the actual intention of the management was to deny the protection available to the respondent as a workman under the pretention of an ostensible promotion and thereafter, to throw him out of the job. The promotion offered was against the precedents, practice and norms of promotion in the Company. According to the respondent, the next promotion post as per Rules from the post of a Radial Tyre Builder is to that of Production Assistant (Tyre Inspector). He is also not qualified for that post. According to the respondent, he had got right to accept the post or to refuse the promotion. The respondent refused the offer by reply dated September 22, 1999.