Transferring Workman From One Place To Another In Absence Of Material Showing Need Of Such Transfer Is Not Fair: Punjab & Haryana HC
The Punjab and Haryana High Court said that transferring workman from one place to another in the absence of material showing the need of such transfer cannot be considered as a fair decision.
The Court said thus in a batch of 17 petitions filed by workmen challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court.
A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Vashisth observed, “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.”
Advocate Rajesh Bansal represented the petitioners while Advocate Ashwani Talwar represented the respondents.
Factual Background -
The Government of Haryana referred the Industrial Dispute for its adjudication to the Labour Court by framing a question that: “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?” The pleased 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 2004-08. Though, the working hours were of 8 hours but the Management used to take the services from him for 10 hours. On raising the issue of over time payment, he along with 28 workers was transferred whereas, there was no such mentioning in the appointment letter regarding such transfer. Thereafter, on not joining at the transferred place, petitioner-workman was not allowed to continue at the earlier working place i.e., Panipat.
A demand notice was issued 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 termination, in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act). In 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. Since the Labour Court answered the industrial dispute against the workman by holding that there was no termination caused by the respondent, he was before the High Court.
The High Court in the above regard noted, “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.”
The Court said that 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 case.
“Management would allow the workmen to continue their service at the place where they were initially appointed. … 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. 14.08.2024”, it ordered.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petitions.
Cause Title- Pappu Giri v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat and Another (Neutral Citation: 2024:PHHC:063611)
