Pappu Giri v. Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court Panipat & Ors

               

   !"!#! $!! !
!#!  %&' ()*+,-

.  %&'(% *+,-.  Sr. No. Case No. Case Title Arising out of Reference No. Date of award passed by Industrial Tribunal

cum

Labour Court, Panipat Petitioner Respondents

01. CWP

17142

2014 (O&M) Pappu Giri s/o Sewa Giri Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Panipat, and another 266 of 2008

14.05.2013

02. CWP

17145

2014 Ram Ji s/o Ramdhar Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Panipat, and another 298 of 2008

14.05.2013

03. CWP

17149

2014 Raj Kumar Gautam s/o Ram Sarup Gautam Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Panipat, and another 296 of 2008

14.05.2013

04. CWP

17150

2014 (O&M) Maman Ram s/o Hukam Chand Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Panipat, and 261 of 2008

14.05.2013
             

another

05. CWP

17151

2014 Karambir Saini s/o Ram Saini Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Panipat, and another 262 of 2008

14.05.2013

06. CWP

17160

2014 Shiv Paul s/o Ram Phere Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Panipat, and another 267 of 2008

14.05.2013

07. CWP

17161

2014 Krishan Sharma s/o Mangar Ram Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Panipat, and another 290 of 2008

14.05.2013

08. CWP

17162

2014 Charan Singh Yadav s/o Gotam Singh Yadav Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Panipat, and another 288 of 2008

14.05.2013

09. CWP

17163

2014 Rajiv Kumar s/o Krishan Lal Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Panipat, and another 289 of 2008

14.05.2013

10. CWP

17164

2014 Raj Kumar s/o Sadhu Ram Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum

295 of 2008

14.05.2013 CWP-  17142 - 2014 & 16  connected petitions  / Labour Court, Panipat, and another

¶11CWP-Jai Singh s/o Mange Presiding 292 of 14.05.2013 17165-Ram Officer, 2008 2014 Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, and another

¶12CWP-Revati Ram s/o Presiding 302 of 14.05.2013 17179-Ayodha Parsad Officer, 2008 2014 Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, and another

¶13CWP-Manohar Lal s/o Presiding 291 of 14.05.2013 17180-Hukam Chand Officer, 2008 2014 Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, and another

¶14CWP-Munna Singh s/o Presiding 285 of 14.05.2013 17182-Lal Ji Parsad Singh Officer, 2008 2014 Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, and another

¶15CWP-Girish Chand s/o Presiding 268 of 14.05.2013 17184-Ramm Officer, 2008 2014 Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, and another

¶16CWP-Ram Niwas Nirwal Presiding 287 of 14.05.2013 17188-s/o Khem Chand Officer,
               2014 Nirwal Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Panipat, and another 2008

17. CWP

17235

2014 Shiv Kumar s/o Banwari Lal Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Panipat, and another 288 of 2008

14.05.2013

!+*  0"1+ 2 3
3! !$4!33 !  #"$* (5(6 (7',89 * +(2 ,:5",,;. !) ,2 ,;; ,2 ( 2 < +,,&'8,= 5(1'. ,,;

,.,, * +(2!5>,,;>,(. !) ,2 ,;; ,2 3! !$4!33. 2 . This common judgement shall decide the fate of aforementioned 17 writ petitions, since the facts and law involved in all the writ petitions are similar. All the total 17 petitions have been filed by the petitioner(s)/workmen, challenging the award(s) passed by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Panipat (here after referred to as the 'Labour Court'), while answering 17 references, vide order dated 14.05.2013 (as depicted in the above table). CWP-  17142 - 2014 & 16  connected petitions  ? After adjudicating the industrial dispute, the Labour Court answered the same against the workman(s), by holding that there is no termination caused by the respondent-Management. /2 Since the facts of the aforesaid writ petitions are identical, to avoid repetition and for the sake of brevity, the same are being referred in the subsequent paras of this judgement, from CWP No2 17142 o@ 2014, which has arisen out of Reference No. 266 of 2008, by treating the same as lead case. 42 The Government of Haryana referred the Industrial Dispute for its adjudication to the Labour Court by framing a question that: A Whether the termination of services of workman Sh. Pappu Giri is legal and justified or not? If not so, to what relief he is entitled? ?2   The pleaded case of the workman was that he was working as 'Clipper' with the respondent at wages of Rs.3,640/- per month and he worked from 01.12.2004 to 14.03.2008. Though, the working hours of petitioner-workman were of eight hours, but Management used to take the services from him for ten hours. On raising the issue of over time payment, workman alongwith 28 workers were transferred, whereas, there was no such mentioning in the appointment letter regarding the transfer of workman. Thereafter, on not joining at the transferred place, petitioner-workman was not allowed to continue at the earlier working place i.e Panipat. Workman issue the demand notice on 07.04.2008, wherein he pleaded that despite completion of 240 working days in the preceding one year of his termination, not allowing him to join the services amounts to CWP-  17142 - 2014 & 16  connected petitions  6 termination, in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( for short, the Act of 1947').

¶6In the written statement filed by the respondent-Management, it was pleaded that as per the appointment letter, workman was appointed in semi skilled category and the terms and conditions of appointment letter refer to the applicability of duly Certified Standing Order of the company. It was also pleaded that the transfer is one of the conditions of service duly incorporated in Certified Standing Order and the workman is bound to obey any such transfer order. It was also pleaded that under Clause No. 37 (v) of the Certified Standing Order, Management is empowered to transfer the employee provided that wages, pay grade, continuity of service, condition of service are not adversely affected in any manner. It was further pleaded that even the salary to the tune of Rs.500/- was enhanced in case the workman joined the services at transferred place and workman was also offered an advance amount of Rs.1,000/- qua travelling/journey expenses. Workman did not join the duty at the place of his transfer, whereas the transfer order was for some administrative reasons. In no manner, the transfer order can be termed as an order of termination as projected by the workman. Neither there is any charge-sheet; nor termination order, so question of retrenchment does not arise. 72 On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Labour Court, vide its order dated 28.04.2019, framed following four issues: " .  Whether the termination of services of workman Shri Pappu Giri is legal and valid. If not so, to what relief, the workman is entitled?OPW. CWP-  17142 - 2014 & 16  connected petitions  7 !.  Whether present reference is not maintainable in view   of   preliminar !legal   ob"ections   in   the   written statement?OP# ".  Whether the workman has failed to report for dut at the place of his transfer as alleged. If so, its effect? OP#. #.  $elief.% B2 During the course of evidence, workman appeared as WW1 and deposed that once, there is no condition in the appointment letter regarding transfer, any transfer would amount to removal from services. Therefore, workman termed his removal/termination with effect from 14.03.2008 to be without notice, charge-sheet or inquiry. Thus, in the case in hand, the working of 240 days in the preceding one year of termination, which is the primary requirement to proceed further for examination of the issue is not under dispute. C2 On the other hand, Sh. Rajan Dutta, Manager, appeared as MW-1 and through his affidavit Ex. MW-1/A, deposed that the condition of employment are governed by Certified Standing Order, which was duly certified on 02.01.2002. As per Clause 37 (v) [Ex.MW1/1], Management is competent to transfer the workman to any factory, anywhere in India, subject to the protection of wages, grade, continuity of service and condition of service and same is not affected adversely in any manner. Further deposed that workman was well aware of the situation that his services would be covered by the Certified Standing Order and thus, can be transferred any time. In no manner, the transfer order can be termed as unfair labour practice. 102 During the course of proceedings before the Labour Court and more importantly while recording statement of workman, he categoricallyRASHMI CWP-  17142 - 2014 & 16  connected petitions  B admitted that, he has no proof of working for ten hours and also that no termination order was given to him. However, he stated that he has been transferred with ill-will and thus, claimed that he has been terminated illegally from service with effect from 14.03.2008. 112 Thus, Labour Court concluded that there is no victimization of the workman especially, when there is no termination order. Relevant findings recorded in paragraph No. 18 of the award is reproduced herebelow: " $.  In   view   of   the   afore&discussed   facts   and circumstances, it is held that there is no such evidence e'cept his own bald statement. (he transfer has declared is incident of service. (his lawful order cannot be sub"ect matter of challenge and the present reference is onl  on the point of alleged termination, when in fact there was no termination. It is established on record that workman did not "oin dut  till date at the place of his transfer and as such issue )o.* be decided holding the workman is not interested to "oin and remained absent from the place of his   posting   after   +,.-*..--/   till   date.   It   is   also established   that   respondent   did   not   terminate   his services.% 122 During the course of hearing before this Court, Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate representing the respondent-Management, referred to the findings recorded in paragraph No.12 for projecting that even as per the observations recorded by Labour Court, industrial dispute cannot be raised on the basis of the termination of the service. Therefore, provisions of Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the Act of 1947 are not required to be followed. Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate representing the Management relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, titled as,  %industan &ever   &td.   's.   (he  Workmen),   *+#,I,&&-,*#' and strengthened his CWP-  17142 - 2014 & 16  connected petitions  C argument by saying that any transfer as per Standing Order is at the discretion of the Management and same cannot be termed as victimization. Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, also relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, titled as DPearlite &iners .P/ &td 's. 0anorama Sirsi), !11# S22 .&3S/ #4", wherein it has been held that "unless there is a term to the contrar5 in the contract of service, a transfer order is a normal incident of service. 6urther it is to 7e considered that if the plaintiff does not compl5 with the transfer order, it ma5 ultimatel5 lead to termination of service. (herefore, a declaration that the transfer order is illegal and void, in fact amounts to imposing the plaintiff on the defendant in spite of the fact that the plaintiff allegedl5 does not o7e5 order of her superiors in the management of the defendant compan5. Such relief cannot 7e granted8 Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate also relied upon the judgment of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), titled as, ''ija5 9umar Wadhwa 's. &ife Insurance 2orporation and others), !1 ! &&:  1"$, saying that "(ransfer is condition of service. (he petitioner has 7een transferred from   ;ranch <fficer, 6ero=epur to Satellite <ffice. 0ere distance does not matter%. 1/2 During the course of hearing before this Court, the efforts for amicable settlement were also made. Even, counsel for the Management offered the lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to each of the workman for settling the dispute and further offered to allow the workman to continue in service, with all the additional facilities, subject to their accepting of joining at the transferred place i.e. Dadra and Nagar Haveli. CWP-  17142 - 2014 & 16  connected petitions  10 142 Despite granting adequate time to think over the proposal, workman(s) refused to accept the proposal. In furtherance of the submissions, counsel for the workman(s) submitted a fact that admittedly, the factory/establishment at Dadra and Nagar Haveli (place of transfer) was started subsequent to the appointment of the workman(s). Therefore, the transfer order on account of the establishment of a new unit/Factory in the year 2007/2008 is an eventuality, which was neither disclosed to the petitioner-workman(s) through the Certified Standing Order; nor in the appointment letter or any subsequent contract between the Management and the Workman. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Delhi High Court, in case. tit;ed ,s. D(o7u >nterprises &imited 's. Presiding <fficer), Industrial (ri7unal and others, !11$ . $/ S.2.(. ?14, &aw 6inder @oc Id A  $4?!$, which is based upon one of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, titled as, 9undan Sugar 0ills 's. Bi5auddin, CI:  *?1 Supreme 2ourt ?41, is applicable in the case at hand. In the said judgment, it has been categorically held that the employer is not possessed with the absolute right to transfer the workman outside the unit where he/she has been originally employed. The relevant paragraphs No. 7 and 8 of  (o7u >nterprises case .supra/. are reproduced herebelow: 0+.  I   find   considerable   force   in   the submissions made on behalf of the workmen. In the present case it is seen that 1a2 there was no unit  outside  3elhi  when the  workmen  were appointed, 1b2 there was no stipulation in the appointment letters that the workmen could be transferred   outside   3elhi   and   1c2   the management closed down its unit in 3elhi in violation of the relevant provisions of the I3 4ct. It is, therefore, seen that although the certified Standing Orders of the management CWP-  17142 - 2014 & 16  connected petitions  11 provided that the workmen could be transferred from   one   job   to   another   or   from   one department/section to another or from one unit to another, as observed by the Single Judge in Civil Writ No. 3861 of 2000, the appointment letter   did   not   give   any   indication   that   the workmen could be transferred outside Delhi, and that, therefore, in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kundan Sugar Mills v. ?iyauddin and others (supra), which clearly holds that  there was no inherent right in an employer to transfer his employee to another place where he chooses to start a business subsequent to the date of employment in the absence of an express term in this behalf in the contract of service, the workmen employed with the management in the instant case could not be transferred to some other independent concern started by the same management at Bhiwadi (Alwar) at a stage subsequent to the date of the employment. Also, insofar as, the contention of the management in respect of the workmen not being entitled to any relief on account of having refused to carry out the. transfer orders is concerned, it is seen that under the provision of Rule 14(3)(a) of the Industrial   Employment   (Standing   Orders) Central   Rules,   1946,   a   willful   disobedience amounts   to   misconduct   only   if   workman disobeys a lawful and reasonable order of his superior, which order in the present case has been held by the Industrial Adjudicator to be neither legal nor justified.

8.  Significantly,   it   is   seen   that   the Industrial   Adjudicator   after   considering   the conduct of the management, whereby transfer orders were enforced only against the workmen concerned, because they were active members of the union, whereas the management withdrew the   transfer   orders   in   respect   of   other employees, justifiably came to a conclusion that the action of the management was malafide, and that the  termination of the services  was in violation of the provisions  of the Industrial Disputes Act and consequently illegal. The view taken   by   the   Industrial   Adjudicator,   in   my opinion, is a possible view and is certainly not perverse. It is not possible for this Court to substitute  its   opinion  for  that   taken  by  the Industrial Adjudicator. Lastly, I come to the submission   made   by   counsel   for   the management that since the workmen had been transferred   to   Bhiwadi   the   Industrial Adjudicator   in   Delhi   had   no   territorial jurisdiction over the dispute that, therefore, the RASHMI reference itself was bad on this account. This CWP-  17142 - 2014 & 16  connected petitions  12 submission made on behalf of the management, does not hold water, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bikash Bhushan Ghosh & Ors. v. Novartis India Limited & Anr.; JT 2007

(6) SC 432, where it has been held that if the order of transfer is illegal and the services of the workman were terminated for not complying therewith, the legality of the orders of transfer would have a direct nexus with the order of termination,   and   would   constitute   cause   of action according jurisdiction to the Industrial Adjudicator where termination was effected, as observed unequivocally by the Supreme Court in Om Parkash Srivastava v. Union of India and Another; JT 2006 (7) SC 35. In the present case it is not disputed that the terimination was effective in Delhi." On the same analogy, Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate  relied upon the judgment of Gauhati High Court, titled as, 'Workman of Bijlibari Tea Estate Vs. Managemen ot Bijlibari Tea Estate', 2010 (5)  S.C.T. 418, and refers to paragraph No. 23, which says as under: "23.  The Apex Court in M/s Kundan Sugar Mills (supra)   while   considering   almost   the   similar   facts involved in the case in hand, has held that the employer has   no  inherent  right   to  transfer   his   employee   to another place where he chooses to start a business subsequent to the date of the employment, when there was no condition of service of employment of the employee either express of implied that the employer has the right to transfer to such new venture started or proposed to be started subsequent to the date of his employment. The Apex Court in that case has uphold the judgment of the labour Appellate Tribunal holding that the management had no right to transfer the workman to new factory and hence, the order dismissing him from service was illegal, based on the fact that such workman employed in a factory owned by the management was sought to be transferred to a new venture. The Single Bench decision of this Court in Kakodanga Tea Estate (P.) Ltd (supra), on which the learned senior Counsel for the management places reliance, cannot be applied in the case in hand, in view of the aforesaid discussion and as in that case, the concerned workman was transferred from a post in the tea garden to the Head Quarter of the Tea Company." CWP-  17142 - 2014 & 16  connected petitions  1/ 1?2 By citing the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and followed by Delhi High Court and Gauhati High Court, Counsel for the workman(s) argues that undoubtedly, as per the Certified Standing Order, workman can be transferred by the Employer at a new place where already an establishment exists at the time of appointment of workman, but Management has failed to cite any provision of law, Clause from the Certified Standing Order or the appointment letter issued to the workman(s) or through any contract, that in the eventuality of development of any new factory by the Management in some outside area, the workman can be transferred to such factory/unit. Thus, he is not bound to comply with such transfer order, because no such expressed or implied condition was mentioned in the Certified Standing Order or the appointment letter and claims that the action of the respondent-Management is against the law. 162 This Court has deeply examined the petition, the impugned award and the reproduced Certified Standing Order and finds that no such eventuality, in expressed or implied terms is mentioned therein. Even, no material has been cited by the counsel for the Management to show that prior to the issuance of transfer order from Panipat to Dadra and Nagar Haveli, any decision was taken by the Management at Panipat, by passing a resolution about the need of the transfer for a particular purpose in that transferred area. Not only this, even there is no evidence led by the Management that any requisition was received by the Management at Panipat from the officials/Management or any subordinate Committee regarding the required
               services from the workman(s). In the absence of any material in the shape of affidavit, showing the need of the transfer of the workman from Panipat to Dadra and Nagar Haveli, it cannot be termed that the decision taken by the Management is fair one and beyond any doubt. The argument addressed by the counsel for the Management would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, because of the absence of any such Clause in implied or expressive terms that in the eventuality of the starting of a new unit/Factory at a different place, the workman from this Unit may be transferred. Thus, the arguments developed on the basis of the Certified Standing Order or The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 would not be attracted for its applicability to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 2 !

(&;-.,;;5,@(,>(89@;F-5 >(7',(,;;>,(%;,;-.+,,&'>%;,;;>5 >(7' %5(() ,5;, >5(5->(,;;- ,2 In alternative, it would be open for the Management to pay a lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/ (Rupees Three Lacs Only) to the workmen (in all the aforesaid 17 writ petitions), who were transferred from Panipat to Dadra and Nagar Haveli, within a period of three months from today i.e. 2 B2 . B2 However, it is clarified that petitioner workman in CWP 17150 of 2014 has died on 19.10.2021. The death certificate dated 08.11.2021 of the said petitioner has already been taken on record. Since, reinstatement of CWP-  17142 - 2014 & 16  connected petitions  1? the deceased-workman in CWP-17150 of 2014 is not possible, the Management is directed to pay a lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs) to the legal representatives of the deceased, who have already been made party to CWP-17150 of 2014. If any such decision is to be taken, the workmen shall be duly informed regarding the decision taken by the Management with respect to the lump sum Compensation within a period of 15 days from the said decision. Once the intimation is sent, uptill the maximum date fixed for payment i.e. 14.08.2024, no interest would be charged. However, in case the payment is not made within stipulated period, same would fetch interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of passing of this order. 1C2 Pending miscellaneous applications therein, if any, are also disposed o@ accordingly. 83!N !$ 4!3HI3TH9 U#GE +,- 14. 2024 rashmi Whether speaking/reasoned?  $es6No Whether reportable?  $es6No