MANAGEMENT GEDEE WEILER PVT LTD Vs. P SWAMINATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER seeks to quash the order made in Complaint No. 1 of 1997 dated 27. 2. 1998 on the file of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, the second respondent herein.

(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint itself is not maintainable because I. D. No. 140 of 1997 is with regard to a reference which dealt only with the question of individual transfers issued to six workmen. As per o. 204 dated 12. 3. 1997 there is no issue with regard to the alteration of conditions of service. The learned counsel therefore submitted that to maintain a complaint under section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, there should be a change in the conditions of service of the workman and the said condition having not been satisfied in this case, the second respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned counsel also submitted that the Model Standing Order 33 (2) (b) contemplates not only express powers of right but also implied powers as well and the Management exercised the implied powers and transferred the first respondent, which the Management did earlier also by transferring the first respondent on several occasions i. e. , on 5. 5. 1994, 12. 8. 1994, 7. 7. 1995, 3. 9. 1995, etc. , and the first respondent also accepted the said transfers without any demur. According to the learned counsel, some of the transfer orders were passed at the request of the first respondent himself and therefore the power to issue transfer order is available to the petitioner Management and the second respondent erroneously passed the order cancelling the same. The learned counsel contended that once t here is power to transfer, then the petition under section 33a concerning such transfer would not lie at all. The learned counsel also cited the decision of the Full Bench reported in 1998 (4) LLN 804 (Correspondent, Malankara Syrian Catholic School, Marthandam v. J. Rabinson Jacob and others) and stated that the power of transfer may be express or implied and the implied power can be reasonably inferred to be included directly in the power of appointment and suo-motu recorded as an ancillary power.