S VEERIAH REDDIAR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a dealer in textile goods, having his Head Office at Alleppey, and branches at Kottayam, Quilon and other places in the State. By an order dated 3-7-1964, the petitioner dismissed from his employment one D. Venkiteswara Kamath, who was a bill collector, after conducting a domestic enquiry against him. That gave rise to an industrial dispute between the petitioner and his workmen; the dispute was referred by the State Government to the Labour Court, Quilon, who by its award Ext. P1 dated 18-12-1967 held that the dismissal of the workman was not for bona fide reasons and ordered that he should be given a compensation of Rs. 2080/- in lieu of reinstatement. The workman was also awarded costs of Rs. 100/-. This writ petition has been filed to quash the above award..

(2.) It is necessary to briefly state the facts. The workman was admittedly employed under the petitioner for about 30 years when he was dismissed from service. According to the petitioner he was first appointed at the head office at Alleppey, where he worked for about two months; and thereafter he was transferred to the Quilon branch. At Quilon, he absented from duty without leave, which caused a break in his service. Subsequently he was re employed with effect from 14-1-1957. According to the workman he was only interviewed for appointment at Alleppey; and after selection, he was first appointed at Quilon and continued in the service of the petitioner till his dismissal. He denies, the alleged break in service and reappointment in 1957. There is also controversy between the parties regarding the circumstances which led to the disciplinary enquiry against the workman. According to the petitioner, the workman was orally transferred from Quilon to Kottayam on 1-1-1964. The transfer was kept in abeyance; and the workman applied for six months' leave on medical grounds on 31-1-1964. Leave was granted only for three months; and a further request for extension of leave was refused. On 11-5-1964, the workman reported for duty at the Quilon branch, when he was asked to join duty at Kottayam. The workman declined to do so, whereupon he was served with a written order dated 18-5-1964 transferring him to Kottayam. The workman refused. Two charges were framed against him, one for disobedience of the above order, and the other for attending to his own business while on medical leave. A domestic enquiry was conducted on the above charges. He was found guilty of the first charge, and acquitted of the second charge. According to the workman there was only a discussion about his transfer in January 1964; and that was dropped when he pointed out his difficulties. He was denied employment, when he reported for duty on 11-5-1964 after expiry of the leave; and on 18-5-1964 he was given the order transferring him to Kottayam. The transfer was mala fide and illegal; and it was done with the ulterior, motive of indirectly terminating his services without payment of compensation.

(3.) The dismissal of the workman was admittedly for disobedience of the order of his transfer from Quilon to Kottayam made on 18-5-1964. The Labour Court found that at that time, the workmen bad a continuous service of 30 years under the petitioner at Quilon. It also rejected the petitioner's contention that the employer, has the inherent right of transferring his employees from one branch of his business to another branch; and that the transfer of the workman in the instant case was done in the exigencies of business. On the other hand, it held that the transfer was not without mala fides and that the dismissal of the workman was not just and proper. Considering the length of his service and other circumstances of the case, the Labour Court awarded the workman a compensation of Rs. 2080 in lieu of reinstatement. It has not been rightly argued before me that if the dismissal was wrong, the compensation awarded is unjustified or excessive. Only two contentions were urged against the validity of the award. One is the legal contention that the employer has the right to transfer his employees; and the other is that the finding of the Labour Court that the transfer was mala fide cannot be sustained on materials.