CARAVAN GOODS CARRIERS PVT LTD Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions may conveniently be dealt with together. The parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in writ Petition No. 3610 of 1974. The petitioner is a private limited company carrying on business of goods carriers having its regional office at Madras and branch offices all over India. On 4th January, 1973, it issued orders of transfer, to the following clerks: 1. K. G. Gopinath; 2. V. Gurumurthi; 3. S. S. N. Md. Hussain; 4. P. Vasu; 5. M. S. Sethumadhavan; and 6. A. R. Md. Hussain. They were transferred to several places, like Nagpur, Bangalore, Delhi, Bombay and Jabalpur. The workmen against whom orders of transfer were passed, represented to the management to reconsider the order. But, according to the management, these transfers were made for administrative convenience, and they were done with reference to the exigencies as they then existed Dispute arose concerning this. There were conciliation proceedings, and the Conciliation Officer sent a failure report, whereupon by G. O. Rt. No. 2047 dated 27th September, 1973, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Madras (first respondent ). The two issues were: 1. Whether the demand of the workmen for the implementation of the recommendations of the Second Wage Board for Road Transport Industries was justified, if so, to what relief they will be entitled ?

(2.) WHETHER the transfer bf the following workmen from Madras to other places is justified; if not, to what relief each will be entitled: Thiru K. G. Gopinath; Thiru V. Gurumurthi; Thiru S. S. N. Md. Hussain; Thiru P. Vasu; Thiru M. S. Sethumadhavan; and Thiru A. R. Md. Hussain. This was taken up as Industrial Dispute No. 163 of 1973. As regards the transfer of five workmen with which alone we are concerned in this writ petition, the Labour Court held that the transfer of workmen from Madras to other places was unjustified and would amount to unfair labour practice. I may at this stage mention that one of the workmen, K. G. Gopinath, did not press his case. Therefore, what remains for consideration is only the case of the other five workmen. It is this award that is challenged in the writ petition. The affidavit in support of the petition takes the stand that the order of the Labour Court proceeds on the singular basis that the orders of transfer came to be passed on one and the same day, and, therefore, it would amount to unfair labour practice. This approach is erroneous. In the counter it is stated that, apart from the fact that the orders of transfer came to be passed on one and the same day the Labour Court had also taken into account the undue hardship that might be caused to the workmen concerned and that too when they were not given time enough to join duty at the respective places where they were transferred, and certainly it would be open to the Labour Court to interfere in such a case. 2. Writ Petition No. 5240 of 1975 is to quash the order of the Labour Court made in I. A. No. 89 of 1975 in the said Industrial Dispute 163 of 1973 wherein the workmen contended that after the orders of transfer were held to be illegal, further relief ought to have been granted. The management opposed this stating that it was not a clerical mistake which could be corrected under the concerned rules; the Labour Court upheld the objection of the management.

(3.) MR. M. R. Narayanaswamy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Labour Court, after having set out the correct legal position, has proceeded to hold that the orders of transfer were illegal and would amount to unfair legal practice, on only one ground, viz. , that all the orders came to be passed on one and the same day. According to the learned Counsel, if really the management is the best person to judge how to distribute its manpower and the Tribunals are by no means suited for making decisions in matters of this nature, certainly the order of the Labour Court is liable to be set aside. The hardships which have been enumerated in the order would be attendant to every case of transfer, and that is no reason to hold that the orders are actuated by mala fides.