M/S Divgi Metal Wares Employees … vs M/S Divgi Metal Wares Ltd on 2 February, 2009

(By SIé.B.Padm§araj;iiaii, _Sr;C33gu:1se1for
M/s.Vijayal<};1;ma'1F B<::1rfi_a1 f~'s.s§t'.~"3. Advs. fer R 1

This W .is« under Article 226 of the
Coz1s{ituti($1*:,__'(}f vV}ndia'pI'ay_iI1g £0 quash the award dated
28.2.2006 passeciby me Industrial Tribunal, Hubii, in

i:<3daTy, V§}Qwda.J, deiivered the fellowingz

JUDGM"E1'fT

\\\_/

310.448 10 /2001 dismissing me writ pe'{iti0n meg: 91?4,§yeT.,

appellant herein and confirming the .

3.3.2005 passed by the

S.().A.N0.1/1999 (hereinafter *

appellate autllezity') under ";%"§..ejTCtio11. €e. _ bf ma" 1
(Empieyment St:ax1di1"1g§ 'I'I:1vv(¥:"3;;Vv)pe11a.te

authority set aside the medifififéfiorx~..(j1'*~p.Ieu1iendments to

ciauses }6(b),;_" 2e8{:9:;'}":-"'a;*<1_c1j:« confirmed the
remaining made by the
cererying dated 30.10.1999 in order

N0.SOA/ Correctness 0f the same is

< 32;: thiZS;"ik7IT§,§ «appeal.

'v::v4:"'–§?§'.V?:-350.31808/2003 is filed by the Genera}

_Sec1'e<ta;*3{ ex' :5tIAr1e trade union chalienging the eommen

daied 30.5.2002 passed in I.D.No.2 e/w Le.

and I.E.N0.~42/98 passed by the Industria}

T Hijbii rejecting the references made by the

u U Sta{e Government on the Ixldustriai Biisputee raised by

\«-/

the trade unian in respect of transfer of certain

ernpioyees of the empieyer/fust respondent.

3. w.P.No.7993 of 2eo6(L) is med

Metal Wares Pvt. Ltd., {lmrehlafter ;:’efez’r1c2.d_ v:t;:;.

empioyerfi agairzst the award dataéd

by the industrial Tribuna}, H1;;.b_}i ‘V

220/ 2001 setting aside the 5?’-tI§e’v’b0¥ipemed
empimyees ef the above

Indust1f§£é§}V’f)is}§§;te§fV ‘ ‘ ‘ »

4. ‘I’h:)11ghVV” §¥;’V€1V . heard a1} these matters

A:{)g¢§;:r§{;eff,’L”i}:e r§:SaJ:____pf.fi1e writ petitions depends upon

‘–._ti::.§:V’de;ci:s3;{2xi’ would be renéered in the writ appeal.

Tiiefeibré; «iéfjg Vfifoceed to consider the writ appeal f1r-st.

n , \’ 5; ” The facts ifl brief am stated as hereunder:

T225 appeiiarfi: is a {raga union regstered under

. the provisions 0f inéian Trade Urzians Act, 1996, The

firs: I’*é”:SpCifld€I}i is a company regstemd under the

\/

Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the ”

automobile gears. It is governed by the. ~

Employment (Standing Orders) tie’

undisputed fact that the en:q;r1oye”r.V_ got the

standing orders at AI}1’16}{1,1I’€5-P.;:Vi’t:fi’Vf”):I’}1. flhabour
Commissioner, who is on 3.97.1989.
Clause 20 of eeftifged “tt1e Company
relates te reads thus:

…… /V _ employee shail

“1iab1eV’i.to transferred at any time

ffom’Vf’-._”the._ ‘ ‘uI1it/faetorw office.

* VVestabiish1’I:e:itt_’of “the companv located

etméwhere 7 _ India or from one

‘ -V _ dej}a1ftInent”to another within the same

unit]fiactoifgr/office/establishment or

from one job of sixnilar nature and

. ”.., ”e:apé1e_ity to an another gob of same

Z and capacity from one job to

eziioifller similar job or from one shifl to

‘~m:-{other shift, provided such a trarzsfer

. does not affect his norma} wages. Any

V -‘ refusal to accept a transfer as above

wili be treated as miseozzduct as per
Rule 31.2.1949.”

6. The standing orders Certified by the

“eeI”tifyi11g oflieer on 3.7.1989 was subject matter of

\w

appeal flied by the trade union. The appeilate amhoriiiy

rejected the appeal as {$316 barreci Vidfi order dated

. 6/4/1996. Thereafter an application was filed

modification of certain clauses in the, certifie_(_1- .

erders of the em}:-layer before the ” ” ‘V

same is registered in SOA/CR-11’

affordilig opportunity to fir$t_,:vL”i*c§pofidL¢rxt_V'”lto

object t0 the proposed modificafifixé. d£_certaijI;v.c1a{1ses of

the certified Standing {jrr1e1§s,.v.3_§;§dé§fV’p«iz1Zflté:<i 30.10.1999

was passed by Gflicer by modifying Certain

clausas. Ii1».§G 20 §)€"3I"t3iI1 to transfer, the

V. ahpve are orderad to be éeleted fram

of the Standing orders as the same are

1:1(i'£. Witll the Rules framed in thg schedule

'Vgf this ..If1§i1;sniai (Emgloymant and Standing} Orciers

" R9-46. Therefore, it is held by the certifying effzcer

' the emgiloyer cannct make any such provision to its

. '4 Standing Orders which is ded uncier the Act.

12

the impugned order passed by him. It is

contended by the learned counsel t;hat_;=

assigfing reasons in the impugned..m_’derg H ” ”

Single Judge afiirmed the order ‘; 7-I

authority.

10. The segmeeecounsel Sri
Padmarajajah, who appearfeel employer,
sought to justify’ O£’d€if_ ‘ef Single Judge
placing jthe decisions, which are

referred few». the- order. The learned Senior

also sffong reiianee upen Aifiele 254 of

of India ané the Constitution Bench

dee:isiozi”ef_”_’»fhe;.Kpex Ceurt in DEEPCHANI} vs. STATE

-01? ii’ Peeeperted in Am 1959 SC 648 and another

“‘..}§eC1$§,QnVV”iI1 M/S.HOECHST PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.

._fe’.=8zA. A>I$I{§TI~II33I¥Z vs. STATE 01? BIHAR & omees, reported

‘V V Afié 1983 SC 1039 in support ef his Contention that,

when there is a direct conflict between the two

\m/

13

provisions of the statute or when one cannoi be obeygé

without disobeying the other, the two enacm1oi1i${‘nia§’vv.,

also inconsistent or obedient to each othcif xvitiioziiz» H

difsobeymg the other are the circufiiétanoeis to ithéxt

there is a cozlflict or repugnancy ”

provisions of the Central Act Stfiteénociifieilt.
He piaced strong relia;rio=e_ i§I;1¢ndfiénf to the
Rule 2-33 in the
{staxiding 0r:1ei*;;}iiiiV oégtgm’: .ji946, inserting
additioiial –.iteii1’$’.’}i3§ith’::.i::: ‘s:::i;od11le to the Act adding

additional V”‘}f§e1B,,3VV”IIiéif:tio:£;Voé at items 19A 85 108(4)

«ther§:;i§1.VVC§r:;e of ti16…;3r?1r1itions made pertains to unansfer

R1,._;i’es:« schedule to the standixig orders reiating

to” iIv1£:i§ij:”;tj¥iiai1 establishments. Tho same is not

xthe model Standing orders fiamad by the

“«Staf<:$"~{}oven1m€nt in exercise of its power under Section

sub–Se<:ti0n (2) clause (13) of the Act. Thereforao, it is

'4 contended that the empioyer has got every right to

rogulatfi the service conditions of its employees, which

\w/

the parties, the foiiowing quesiions of law wqzffiiie' _

15

fer our consideration:

(1)

Whether the appeilaxrt had T ‘ :;_ AA

under Section __10{2′}d_
(Employment orders ms: ieéés to
seek modifieettiog;.—-ef”x:-.C?;.t%§1Se’ the
certified <§:fde1fs'4v'f:§i"»1e.,,@_iI1ployer and
modificatien _V fhe ofiicer
to cZ_eie§e1'eer§'ain said clause,
and with Section

Act?

“of the Certifyixzg Ofiicer

V§1eeept;ii’1gVA’£.’§1’e..:_f3r0posed modificatien tn} the

‘ ‘V _/

16

Government in the absence of

_prescription of the entry involéng ”

No.11 uncier the gcheduie regaréirigi t1*ga;1″s”f.ér’ H

of em 10 6:65 of the er;1″l<.-War-' iI1V'4't':ié?: i*uI_e':s V'

framed by it not consiiierihg if

111131 wouid be the.sLz.1pstaiiti_a1 que.stip;r§4_{$f ms

to be cansidertzd a1§€1..¢«éinsWefé:=:i court

in favaur of 'tl1<f: Tf%idE§"Li1ii(i1'3.?'

(iv) What Q_rde:’? _ A»

“”” “‘}’1*i<:§{5.;3f0;£*§.:5ssa;i:i ;'1egai "q"£1éstions are answered
in "favour –0f* union fer the following
reasonég:

‘ Emgxioyfma-:13}: (Standing Orders) Act

i$ “§ir§§(:V§§ii}sijh§§i;:£ionaI law. It has passed {he tes’£ of

‘.Ar¥icié Z 1 3.(1.)”.of rm Constimiion of India and it is, in

VA fazff§ié’.«~..é Tina provisions of ms Act are applicable to the

fmst responcient emgaloyer, wlfich has got its awn

M% Standirxg Qrders certified

Cartifyirzg Ofiicer under the provisions of the Act.

\«\v

For the purpose of considering the _

contenelons, it would be just _proper”‘fe’1*ei_isV”£o ”

17

extract certain relevant provisions ‘ef

_ Sec:’tiof1~ ~ .

‘.5’em1;1eve1*’?” _ as ‘ the

“aperepriate Gove::1ment”‘v-i.s deI§3t1ed’v’i:?1…

Section 2(1)) of the to n:iea:i’et¥1atI4iz1
respect -of iné1::stI:iai.._ ‘e_Stabli’s}’3I;1eIits
under the E’;()I’I£f_:i’Ol_ “Gf , L’t-he Central
Government 5:: £1 Raiiwayedmiriistration
or in a majeg_p’m_~t, .g1§§1e”‘er’e_i1a-field, the
.__Go\;emi111en§:,’««..’%a.1;d’- in.’ all other
cases, “}?he Sfate Government; Therefore
ef.I_fi1fSt_ Iesponrient industriai
e;-sf§a’:;j_ii:;3i11xie11.1:”e’4:TE’:e”State Government is
the pr:ia1;e–. Gave ent”.

V Act éefines
owner of an

induetrial estabfishment to which this

file

_ ‘ ” Act “fe_1*’the’ time being applies, and
‘ E _ ir.1e1udi”n.g–,—:–« *

~ In a factory, any person named
vfiijnder [ clause (f) of 5’Lib~–
‘ seetion(1) of seetien 7, of {he
Faeteries Act, 1948 (63 of 1948)],
as manager at’ the factory;

In any industrial establishment
under the eentroi of any
department of any Government in
India, the authority appointee by
such Government in this behaif,
or where no autherity is so

\w/

18

appointed, the head of
department. ‘

Section 2(3) defines ”in.duSt;_r1V_’5i1f~.. ”
estabiishment” to
estahlishmsnt as defined c1a_us’e- .(i.i}_
of section 2 of Pa}/111£~’:i”1′;1; o::Zf”%’.’é1gi:$'”1’\§5t: V’
1936 etc., V i’ ” °

As per Secti{£1*2.V ‘1.’{t)
maans prescribed §:s§;– :fu1es»..madé’byA the
appromriate Q’1;_:verf;1111e1it ._u1j1’ci.er the Act.
Sectioxz 2(g) ‘cie_ifint:$Vo3:ders”
means I’U.l€S’fC13t.}.I1’g_ ti; Iiiattaizfs-‘set out
in ti)r::Sc=i1e€L\11ilows:

” _ 3’._S”y1i:::1iission of draft standing

– .. 0r'(k;rs.»«(“1) Wifhin six months from the
ciata ” ‘-or; ____ __which this Act becomes
‘ alppiicable 1:0 an industrial
“~ie’::=£éx’i)1ishment, the fimpioyer shall
Submvit to the Certifying Ofiicer five
‘tifipies of the drafi stanéing orders

‘ {nfoposeé by him for adaption. in his

‘ industrial estabiishment.

(2) Provision shall be mada in
such draft for every matter set 0111; in
the Schedule which may be applicable
to the industrial establishment, and
where modal standing ordem have
bear: prescribed, shall be, so far as is

\M/

23

entry No.11 namely “any other matter regarding
transfer” of empleyees of an establishment. Therefore,

the reasons assigled by the appeliate autherity V

order that the order paseed by the ee1*tifyi__}.f1g” A’

without assig1ing the reasens in his _erder, 13.: not ”

factually and legally correct.

Ofiicer has rightiy assigmd Eiiejeaeoné in i=1viéA..(;r(f1Ver _i’03.*

deletion of the above tgnderlineii-..§9eIj§ioI§ :’v£’hevVfC1ause

20 of the certified €}1jeie1-‘VS the empleyer

statingitlxat ‘vp_ireVi~Sien in the schedule 91″ the

Act to e3;heV’;3._’t)’€;:§’e– te the standing orders of

_ the ..e%;ep1eyer “t<3… tVra1f§.-sfer its employees anywhere in

Eneiieew braziehes/urzits. Therefore, the first

not have got; such clause regarding

IVtraneierveef.'employees eerizifled to its etandeag careers,

V' "V~3:~'.?1Af1i[{:'Ts3é iewnet provided in the Schedule to Act: prescribed

by the State Gevennnent, which is the appregriaie

' Gevenimzent. The reason aesigmd by the Certifying

Officer in his order having regard to the mléisputed fact

\M/

25

Sections 283), 2(6), 2(g) respectively and.

definition of “prescribed” 1*/vs? Sectien 15 »

clause (1)) of the Act. Section 15(2) ef

power upon both Ceneal Go1;__er*:”11i”zeV_I’t’1i

Government to add er’ .ether* the
schedule to frame the Ge tee basis
of the eenfemnem ef appropriate
governmeme of Therefore,
the sub1r1%e$ie:e::”e;f’–I fer the appellant
Trade reiianee upon the

CerzstitL1tien fldgexent of the Supreme Court and

_a11o:.£ier: ‘cieeisiei1.,_;eferre(i to supra \«E3’§.{1″1 ali fours

apijfiGa§;x3’g.£Q,’::f3]C facts situation Paragraph 10 of the

1-1 I) E Supply Company reported in

SC 3.471, reads thus:

“Pare. 10: The second aspect ef the
matter which is relevant on this point is
that the Standing Qrders have te eever
the matters specified in the Schedule
attached to the Act. Item 13 in the said
Scheduie refers to any other matter,
which may be prescribed. We have

\w/

27

And relevant portion in para 18 I’€€i(1S..1I]f’]:’1′:13; ‘ L.

“PARA — 13 : We do riot f
argument is we]1~fou1i;le(E.. A’ We_ have”
aiready emphasised the t.V_1″.éict t’;”:at;ut the
Act, even in its’-v.__o::iginai~__ to-1:111,

intended to zequire’=._the employers to
define with “precisio11e the
conditions of }e1I1p1o§me:;’tv,t fiflcifii’ them.
In pursuance Iof ‘t1–ie” ~.o’i;ject, the
Schedule enuznerateqo _1O._A ‘items in
respect of which Ojrders had to
diféfteé V bf: §.l”i€”_z. employers and

eiibfmitteti. for1o’j’ee1*tif;eé1tion. Item 11 in

the__VSC;huedi§..§:e Vre1’er_s”‘i:o . }other matter
Whichee «gay When the
app;rop:*iate*- adds any item
tothe Seheki1,:1e;”theAre1evant question to
ask””wo:;1ci” whether it refers to the

A.-eo:1ditio11s’Vof etnployment or not. if it

» Qdoee, it Woxxld be within the competence

A of’=th’e..« approféfiate Government to add
5-och’«..ai:.__itemt Section _ 15(1) confers

twitiey ” fpowers on the appropriate

“=l’GoireTi;’:}:}:1ent to make rules to carry out
t1′;e’p.i11’posed of the Act; and S.15(‘2)

specifies some of the matters
enumerated by C15. (a) to (e), in respect

AA ll of which rules may be framed.”

Cement Industries Case.

Vt In fact this ViCW was earlier taken by the

jnfiwxent of the Supreme Court in Bztgalket

l\\u/

In View of the said

34

19. Acctordingly, W.P.N0.318()8/Q3 u

with cost of Rs.5,00G/– payable by the £0″

Union halding that the transfer] of

mega}, bad and contrary

Ordars. The Gammon ordéf’ dated
30.5.2002 in m.Nos.%{2>j%«~ ‘c,?:w.A3;*.§3’§”‘«.a nd 42/98 is
quashed. W.P.No.79’33.,1f.§6}.i:;§. <i,isfiiS'S;€:§} 'V"wii:1"1 cost of
Rs.5,(){)(}/~ paj%abie g;a;,{he "
Sd/-é
Sd/-u
Iudge