SHREE BAIDYANATH AYURVEDH SHREE BAIDYANATH AYURVEDH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER,INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (I),ALLAHABAD & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal directing the petitioner to reinstate the workman with full back wages and other consequential benefits including interest on unpaid wages and cost of Rs. 5,000/-. For facility and convenience, the petitioner is called the “management” and the respondent is called the “workman”.

(2.) THE petitioner is one of the 5 units of M/s. Sri Baidyanath Ayurvedh Bhawan Ltd., which is a Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Head Office at Kolkata. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Ayurved medicines. The present dispute relates to the Naini unit of the petitioner Company. It is alleged, that all the units are independently managed and administered separately and that there is no inter unit transfer and, it is only in exceptional circumstances that an employee is sent on a deputation to another unit, as per the requisite requirement of work.

(3.) BEFORE the Tribunal, the workman filed his written statement contending that he was initially appointed as a Maintenance Engineer in the year 1991 at Kolkata and was transferred to the Naini unit in 1993 and that, in December, 1999, he was again transferred to the Kolkata unit of the Company. The workman contended that he complied with the transfer order and reported to the Kolkata unit and requested the management to allow him to join his duties but the Kolkata unit refused to comply with the transfer order and instructed the workman that since there was no vacancy in the Kolkata unit and that the management was not in a position to allow the workman to join his duties at Kolkata, the management of the Kolkata unit directed the workman to go back to the Naini unit and, in this regard, a fax message as well as a telephonic message was sent to the Naini unit. It is alleged that the workman reported back to the Naini unit and requested the management of the Naini unit to permit him to join his duties at Allahabad. The workman contended that the Naini unit did not allow the workman to report and submitted that he should approach the Kolkata unit for the redressal of his grievance.