Summary
The Court upheld invalidation of nine employees’ transfers from Dewas to Chopanki. The evidence supported findings of victimisation, reduction of the Dewas workforce and a consequential change from workman duties to supervisory work without the required notice of change. This concerned the transfers’ proved effects, rather than a rule that every transfer required Section 9A notice. The workers were awarded consequential salary and retirement benefits as if they had continued at Dewas, together with individual costs.
Issues
- Whether the proved consequences of the transfers attracted Section 9A and the Fourth Schedule.
- Whether the employer’s challenge to the intra-court appeal ruling required remand despite determination of the full dispute on merits.
Provisions considered
- Section 9A and Fourth Schedule, item 11, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947The transfers’ effects on duties, service conditions and workforce strength required notice of change, which had not been given. (¶¶ 7, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 8)
Held
- The Labour Court’s findings were supported by evidence, including the employer’s witnesses. The workers’ existing status and intended assignment to supervisory duties after transfer were established, along with a reduction of nine workers at Dewas. These findings were not perverse. (¶¶ 7, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.6, 7.7)
- The decisive issue was the consequence of these transfers: altered work and service conditions and a reduced workforce. A contractual transfer power did not dispense with statutory notice for those changes. The employer failed to justify the distant transfers at the workers’ late career stage, and the findings of malafides and victimisation stood. (¶¶ 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.8, 8)
- On the particular pleadings and prayer, the Division Bench had treated the intra-court appeals as unavailable from Article 227 proceedings. Even assuming the employer’s Article 226 characterisation, the Supreme Court decided the complete controversy on merits rather than remanding after the lengthy delay and approaching retirements. (¶ 7.9)
- The employees were entitled to consequential benefits as if they had remained at Dewas, including salary arrears and applicable retirement benefits. The employer had to pay those benefits and Rs.25,000 costs for each worker within four weeks. (¶ 8.1)
Result
All appeals dismissed. Employer directed to comply with the Labour Court awards and pay consequential salary, wage and retirement benefits within four weeks, together with Rs.25,000 costs to each workman within the same period.