WIMCO LIMITED Vs. WIMCO EMPLOYEES UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the first respondent waives service. By consent taken up for final hearing.

(2.) THE Industrial Court has granted an interim stay of an order of transfer despite an express finding in the impugned order dated 3rd May, 2001 that no mala fides have been established as regards the transfer of the workman concerned from the Head Office at Mumbai to the factory at Ambernath. The workman, Mr. Shailesh Mahyavanshi, was appointed on 5th August, 1987 as a Hamal. The letter of appointment expressly states that his services are liable to be transferred to any of the units of establishments of the employer in India, in which case the service conditions will be governed by the Rules and Regulations of that unit or establishment. An Order of transfer has been issued on 12th March, 2001 by which the workman was asked to report at the factory situated at Ambernath. The Industrial Court has taken due note of the fact that the services of the workman are transferable. The Industrial Court has noted at more than one place in its Order that the question as to whether the transfer is mala fide would have to be established only upon leading evidence and that in the present case, a case of mala fides has not been made out at this stage. The Industrial Court was, however, persuaded to interfere with the Order of transfer on three grounds :

(3.) THE Industrial Court held that the balance of convenience weighed in favour of the workman because his monthly wages may be reduced upon transfer. This conclusion, as noted earlier is erroneous and in any event, it has been stated on behalf of the employer that the wages which would be allowed to the workman upon transfer to Ambernath would in no manner be less than what he is drawing at present.