MOHANR MHATRE Vs. UDAIPUR DISTILLERY COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned advocates for the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Perused the records. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 24. 04.1998, passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No. 594/ 1997. The industrial Court has dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner on the ground that the Court at Mumbai has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

(2.) Few facts relevant for the decision are that the petitioner was sought to be transferred from Mumbai to Delhi by order dated 17-6-1997 issued by the respondent No. 1. On receipt of the said order the petitioner filed the present complaint before the Industrial Court, Mumbai. It is the case of the petitioner that he was employed with M/s. Herbertsons Limited since 1987 in their clerical cadre. By letter issued in January, 1993, he was sought to be transferred to Associate company viz. the respondent No. 1 in their office at Mumbai and continued to work in their office accordingly. Even though, the petitioner was entitled to certain benefits under the agreements and settlements entered into between M/s. Herbertsons ltd. and its employees, he was denied the same and, therefore, he had filed the complaint being (ULP) No. 1285 of 1996 which was pending before the Industrial Court. The said complaint was filed in October, 1996. It was in retaliation to the said complaint, that the said transfer order was issued on 17-6-1997.

(3.) On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that they have no office at Mumbai and their factory is located at Udaipur in the State of rajasthan and they have their establishment also at Delhi where the petitioner is sought to be posted pursuant to the order of transfer. According to the respondents, no cause of action arose beyond the State of Rajasthan and, therefore in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of transfer, he has to approach the court of competent jurisdiction within the State of rajasthan and not in the State of Maharashtra. It is their further case that the Model Standing Orders have no application to the case in hand as the respondents company has no establishment at Mumbai employing 50 or more workmen and it is open for the respondents to transfer their workmen to any other establishment of the company as the transfer is an incidence of service. It is their further case that the petitioner was employed by the respondent No. l by letter dated 01-09-1993 as a Clerk effective from 01-07-1993 as earlier he was working with M/s. Herbertsons Ltd. on temporary basis and he was employed permanently with the respondents effective from 01-07-1993 with the hope that the company would be in a position to organize its operations in a big way, but same could not materialize in view of the change of Government policy in the State of maharashtra and it was not possible for the respondent to commence its operation in Mumbai and consequently the respondent decided to shift the petitioner to some other location where his services could be utilized and, therefore, the order of transfer dated 17-6-1996 was issued. It is their further case that the services of the petitioner cannot be utilized in mumbai as they have no establishment at Mumbai wherein his services can be utilized at Mumbai and, therefore, the respondents are compelled to transfer the petitioner to Delhi.