WORKMEN Vs. ADDISONS PAINTS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ appeal is directed against the order of learned single Judge in W. P. No. 14291 of 1992 dated 23. 4. 1993, confirming the award of the Labour Court in I. D. No. 1193 of 1989 dated 7. 2. 1992. THE Association representing the workman who was subjected to an order of transfer is appellant before us. THE reference made to the Labour Court in G. O. 2242 dated 22. 12. 1989 was follows:- ' Whether the transfer of Thiru. S. Nagarajan Chemist working as Technical Representative to the post of Sales Representative is justified; if not to give appropriate direction. Whether the demand of wages to Thiru S. Nagarajan from 25. 7. 1988 is justified; if not to give appropriate direction.' A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition shows that the employee S. Nagarajan was a Chemist in the plant eversince his appointment in the year 1962 and he continued as such till 1977. In the year 1977 he was transferred as Technical Representative which post is also said to belong to the category of Chemist. On 25. 7. 1988 she said Nagarajan was transferred as a Sales Representative. According to the appellant/association the two posts namely, Technical Representative and Sales representative belong to two categories with different functions and conditions of service and different pay scales. THErefore, Mr. Nagarajan protested against the transfer and since the Management refused to give him work as a Chemist, the employee was treated as absent and denied wages from 25. 7. 1988. It was under these circumstances that a dispute was raised under Section 2 (k) of the industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) resulting in the reference above cited. Before the Labour Court, it was contended by the appellant that the order of transfer amounts to victimisation because the said nagarajan, as Assistant Secretary of the Association, and filed a writ petition against the company in respect of certain alleged pollution caused by the factory. Secondly, it was pointed out that the transfer was against the standing Orders and was meant to prevent Nagarajan from claiming benefits of the award in I. D. No. 83 of 1984 and the benefits accruing therefrom. In that award, the tribunal remand had held that the service contracts were illegal and one sided and the junior management staff should be paid pay D. A. , H. R. A. , as given to other workmen. This award was confirmed in writ appeal. One of the findings in the said award is that salesmen are not workmen.

(2.) HOWEVER, Labour Court upheld the order of transfer by its Award dated 7. 2. 1992. In doing so, the Labour Court has held: (i) There was no evidence before the Court to show that the management had taken action against Nagarajan with any vindictive attitude. (ii) The transfer order was on account of exigencies and urgencies prevailing in the Department. (iii) The transfer as within the City, but to a different post, and the management had categorically stated that Nagarajan will get the same wages and allowances. (iv) The employee Nagarajan had refused to accept the transfer order and was giving several reasons for not working as a Sales representative. (v) Therefore, the management was not liable to pay him wages.

(3.) IT has to be remembered that the writ appeal referred to therein in the judgment reported in A. P. & C Ltd. Asst. Assocn. v. Industrial Tribunal, Madras, 1994 L. I. C. 1779. Therefore, the only point which requires some consideration has been squarely and satisfactorily answered by the management by filing the above undertaking. We have therefore, no hesitation in accepting the findings of the Tribunal as well as learned single judge to the effect that the order of transfer does not suffer from any of the defects pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, the order of transfer is upheld, after taking note of the undertaking of the management.