LAWS(BOM)-2001-8-115

PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED Vs. H H SURANA

Decided On August 10, 2001
PHILIPS INDIA LTD Appellant
V/S
H.H.SURANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners challenge the order of the Labour Court passed in an application under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act whereby the petitioners were directed to pay certain amount to the 1st respondent. A few relevant facts are as follows: The 1st respondent was appointed in the petitioners Pela factory on 26th May, 1972. Under the appointment order, the 1st respondent was informed that he would be transferred to any department of the petitioners establishment. He was also informed that at the time of transfer he would be placed in the appropriate grade and scale applicable at the place of transfer keeping in view the existing grade. He was assured that his total emoluments will not be reduced. The 1st respondent was confirmed on 26th November, 1973. The 1st respondent was transferred to the petitioners factory at Pune. On 12th July, 1978, the 1st respondent made an application for a transfer to the Head Office at Mumbai. While his case was being considered by the petitioner, the 1st respondent made another application against a vacancy which had arisen in Mumbai. Since the 1st respondent was found suitable, after being interviewed, he was transferred to Mumbai on 21st March, 1980. However, the 1st respondent was informed by the petitioners that they were considering the transfer at his request and therefore, he would not be entitled to any transfer facilities. After joining in Mumbai, the 1st respondent who was drawing salary in scale of Rs. 160-12/5-220-13/5-285-14/5-355 in Pune was placed in a scale of Rs. 144-13/6-222-15/6-312-18/8-456. As a result, the 1st respondent was given a basic wage which was far less than the basic wage that he was drawing in Pune. However, the wage which was given to him was of the Bombay scale. Being aggrieved the 1st respondent called upon the petitioners to rectify their action and pay him salary in accordance with his appointment letter as also to give him the facilities available to an employee on transfer. As this was not acceded to by the petitioners, the 1st respondent filed an application under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming arrears of wages from 1st April, 1980 to 31st March, 1983 being an amount of Rs. 25,099. 99 and travel expenses incurred during the shifting amounting to Rs. 13,209/ -.

(2.) PARTIES adduced both oral and documentary evidence before the Labour Court. The Labour Court by its order dated 6th May, 1998 directed the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs. 19,728. 13 on account of basic wages plus D. A. from 1st April, 1980 to 31st March, 1983 and an amount of Rs. 6,681. 15 as his personal allowance for the same period.

(3.) MR. Rele for the petitioners submitted that the application under section 33-C (2) is not maintainable as the 1st respondent is in fact questioning the terms of his transfer, and the propriety and legality of a transfer can be decided only in a reference under section 10 (1) (d) of the Act. He further submitted that the transfer was effected on humanitarian grounds at the request of the 1st respondent and therefore he would not be entitled to the facilities and allowances payable to transferred employees. Mr. Rele further submitted that the Labour Court had merely copied the written arguments submitted by the respondent No. 1 as his order. He submitted that after transfer of the 1st respondent his total emoluments were protected as although he was being paid total emoluments in Pune amounting to Rs. 1284. 77, in Mumbai he was drawing a salary of Rs. 1361. 60 on a basic wage of Rs. 196/- per month. Mr. Rele further submits that there was no scale in Bombay which was comparable with the scale in Pune which was being paid to the 1st respondent and hence if the 1st respondent was aggrieved by the fitment of scale Rs. 144-13/6-222-15/6-312-18/8-456, he would have to approach the Court by way of a reference to have the dispute adjudicated.