IN THE men COURT OF KARNA'l"AKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 31*' day 0!' July, 2009 Before 3713 HLWBLE MR JIISHCE HULUVADI G__ T f: _ _ Between: M33 Hitachi Koki India Ltd P1ot#9A_,IPhase Peenya inclusirial Area, Bangalere 58 By its Financial Controller & Secretary L' b _ "-- ¢_ T ' 'Pe:i§ioner (By Sri B C Prabhakar, Adv'. . Anti' 1 if 2, Mili ~£'gc~;ner,"1fSa£1:pig1e Road Niaflesiiwatawig-Bmwgaiogé"*3 ' ' 2a SdC}1§m1igai3.h, '1" 2b 3 _; 'Sm: z~Iax£ja:.e:gg a','gnio"1ate Beregowda « ' g & General Workers' Union ' » #2, Miii. Comer, Sampige Road «maiisghsviaraah, Bangiore 3 Respenctmlts (3y---5;;-i M -(3 magma" Assts., Adv. for 121) Tia; Writ Petition is fried mas: Art.226f227 of the Constitution " to quash the award dated 21.3.2905 in Ref.28!20G0 file Pr}. _' . 'igxficat Ccrurt, Bnagalare. This Writ Petition coming on for hearing this day, the Coast made the following: 3*,»- Writ pezaean 16483 1 2995 » 1' 'V ORDER
Petition is by the management assailing the award passed byfige Pd.
Labcar Court, Bangalore in Ref.28/2000 on 21.3.2605.
About three workmen were me' u u
petitioner company, to difierent places. .Aebordm_ g'e'r;:av§7e;.7r,t,V{'T::§
per the canditions of employment the?) treizsferred. A3pgs§a!.3_.3flae$e >
respondezat workmen have werked for ” in fiie’ Unit and
they were transferred to ._B:ranc1-Fees ;e.f1fl’ie_ on the gonad
that fixeir services are needed the_1′..6.-. said transfer and
alleging moved the Labour Court Labour Court
directed the on duty ta their original place with
centintzity’ (sf serviee ef 60% back wages. However, we of the
.vi*Grkn1a::¢ V V” durm’ g pendency ofthe writ petition and
and in case of one B V Cfhandrashekarappa,
‘ ,-gi11s¥i3fi!s?’IVft£:ntV with 60% back wages. Hence, this petition by the
7 . « . _rt*..:tz:ageznei1t_. i~
‘ ” ‘iieaxfl the counsel represenim” g the parties.
According to the management, transfers made W35 3 cenditien of
azzpairmnent but the workmen were not Rather, they raised a dispute.
W
The award of the Labour Court is agains! the conditions of
perverse mad there is scope for trarmfer and there was sushi: M
Managemeni is justified in ixanafenirng mam,» ‘Lehman’ Vizetehaiée V’
taken a lenient View in the matter to extend
I”-‘er contra, enamel representing the workmen subt::i§tedV’:fliat *’
fltree workmen, one of them died during offhis 12.5.2007
and his legal heirs are on mm meme; has the benefit
of the award af reinstatement and Court hm taken 3
View that there is n:;..a<%zx;ii_1ist:'a:fiv'e§e7§igene§«"'§e_'~ttaf1si?er'them, rather, only to
victimise z:r§e:ra,TV:i:e';%.'»:;aye:V'31§¢en'§r.§g;sr¢;~r.:=ci" 1: is also subxnitted these two
Warkmen W 'n–.vo3ved_ i:a'j.1J:§ion::;ic:s«eaties as President and Vice President,
to victimjse isiaeii a "weS"'iaken to transfer them to far of places.
of ifieezfguzxtents advanced, the point for consideration is
V ' ' prder requires interference,
_ é"2ei:;2ter'§§i:'§het fmding, Labour Court was of the View that the
V V' _ecmd:1et'—-of fiée menagenzent in trmsfexring the workmen was rm: fair. It
_. , { evotsld have been some demand on the part of the workanen
need, of course it was the discretion of the rmmagement to
:)P/
High Court. As a matter of fact finding the Labour Conn wgs..¢s£.:.4§;vicw
that 'm the absence of any exigemy, oniy to victimise,
transferred and also opined that the Union a l¢;iierv– 'of V
the Union has notbeenconsidered. A. = 'V
The stand taken by the marzageméxgt 'is, tixereiaras no
Union. However, the managamerif was}?
mcongised Union. When :3;e.1.,a1aox;:..c:}fu.-1 hm foznfiiizést ixés nothing but
victirnisatimt, there is no by the I.-ah-oxxr Court.
So far as ordef cnncerned, it came: be faulted.
But so far as ifs;-f– person who has died to whom
60% baa; Wages cannot be interfered with as he has
expired. S-5″ parser: who can be taken on duty, whiie
_ the pf rgrinstatexzzcnt, it is ordered that the workman is
e:;:.e.f1;ec 59%’ 25% back wages.
” A P¢:i:i;<§;g..V;,:Canowed in pan.
Iudge