IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 7296 of 2009(F)
1. THE SECRETARY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M/S.HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD.,
... Respondent
2. THE LABOUR COURT,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :11/03/2009
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.7296 OF 2009
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a Union of workers of the Tatapuram Union
of the 1st respondent Company which is the successor-in-interest
of the erstwhile Tata Oil Mills Limited. The erstwhile Company
had two units, one at Ernakulam and another at Calicut. The
company decided to suspend the activities of the Calicut Unit.
Therefore, 53 workmen of the Calicut Unit were transferred to
Tatapuram Unit as per a settlement entered into between the
workers and the management. The workers of Tatapuram unit
represented by the petitioner Union raised a dispute, which
resulted in a reference of the dispute to the Labour Court,
Ernakulam, which was adjudicated as I.D.No.20/2005. The
questions referred for adjudication were:
“1. whether the transfer of 53 employees from
Hindustan Lever Limited, Kozhikode to Tatapuram
factory is legal and Justifiable”? 2. Whether the
transfer of employees adversely affect the existing
conditions of service and the long term settlement of
the workmen at Tatapuram? 3. If so, the reliefs
entitled to the workmen”.
W.P.(c)No.7296/09 2
The Labour Court after taking evidnece came to the conclusion
that transfer of the workmen from Calicut has not affected the
existing service conditions of the workers of Tatapuram unit
and it cannot be found that the transfer of the 53 workmen
from Calicut unit to Tatapuram unit is illegal and unjustifiable.
On the basis of that finding, the workers were ednied any
relief. Ext.P4 is the award passed by the Labour Court in that
I.D. The petitioner is challenging that award. The petitioner’s
contention mainly is regarding the validity of the findings of
fact entered into by the Labour Court.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. From the award itself, I find that the decision was
taken by the Labour Court on the basis of admissions made by
the witness of the petitioner himself. The discussion of the
evidence is as follows:
“The Point: It is the common case that
originally the management company, Tata Oil Mills
Company Limited had two units in Kerala, one at
Tatapuram in Ernakulam and the other at Calicut and
later the Tata Oil Mills company was amalgamated
with Hindustan Lever Limited. It is not disputed that
the Tata Oil Mills Company Limited at Calicut and
Ernakulam were having separate staff and the serviceW.P.(c)No.7296/09 3
conditions of the employees in Tatapuram were
decided on the basis of agreement subsisting up to
2006 and the service conditions of the Calicut unit
was governed by settlement dated 15.1.2002.
Subsequently by settlement dated 8.12.2003,
management introduced Voluntary retirement scheme
in the Calicut unit and out of the 177 workmen in the
unit, 124 workers had opted for V.R.S. and remaining
53 workmen had exercised the option of transfer to
the Tatapuram unit of the company. As per the terms
of the settlement dated 8.12.2003, these 53
workmen of the Calicut unit were transferred to the
Tatapuram unit as the activity of the Calicut unit was
suspended. The claimants here in are the workmen of
the Tatapuram unit. They allege that the transfer of
the 53 workmen from the Calicut unit to the
Tatapuram unit is without any authority and is
detrimental to the interest of the existing workmen
at Tatapuram. According to them, the service
conditions of the employees in the Tatapuram, which
was on the basis of the agreement subsisting up to
2006, the wages were linked with productivity and by
the transfer of the 53 workmen from Calicut unit to
Tatapuram, no new production unit as agreed by the
management before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala
in Writ Petition 39585/03 was started and that the
transfer of these 53 workmen is detrimental to the
interest of the workmen at Tatapuram unit. But the
management would contend that the transfer of
workers to Tatapuram will not affect the claim for
incentive of the existing workers and new laundry
soap line was started in Tatapuram factory to engage
the 53 workmen who had opted for transfer from
Calicut unit to Tatapuram unit. MW1 representing theW.P.(c)No.7296/09 4
management had stated that when the Calicut unit
stopped functioning, only 501 bar soaps were
manufactured there in and at Tatapuram after the
transfer of the employees, manufacturing of 501 bar
soap has been started. He has stated that in the
appointment order there is a clause regarding the
transfer as a condition of service. Ext.M1 and M2 are
the copies of the appointment order under which it is
provided that the workers should be prepared to
work anywhere India without claiming any extra
remuneration for transfer. MW1 had stated that the
sale of 501 bar soap was decreased and that resulted
in the closure of the unit at Calicut. During the cross
examination, MW1 had stated that there is a
separate line of laundry for the workers of Calicut at
Tatauram unit and the transfer of the workers from
Calict unit was under agreement of 2002. Though
WW1, the worker was examined on the side of the
workers, he has not stated, how the workers at
Tatapuram are affected by the transfer of the
workers from Calicut unit to Tatapuram unit. During
the chief examination, he had admitted that at
Tatapuram unit also, the production has been reduced
and no new items are now manufacturing. During the
cross examination, WW1 had admitted that it is
known to WW1 that the functioning of the Calicut
unit has been stopped and that these workers are
transferred to Tatapuram unit. During the cross
examination, he has also admitted that at present out
of these 53 transferred workers 42 had gone out
under voluntary retirement scheme. He has also
admitted that the works are allotted to the
transferred employees only after giving preference
to the workers at Tatapuram. He has furtherW.P.(c)No.7296/09 5
admitted that the management has authority to
transfer. He could not answer when it was suggested
that the management has authority to transfer its
workers being one of the service conditions. In the
appointment order itself, it is specifically provided
that the employees have to work anywhere in India
without claiming any extra remuneration for transfer.
Evidently it is due to the non functioning of the unit
at Calicut the workers had opted for transfer to
Tatapuram unit and that the management was
compelled to transfer these 53 workmen from Calicut
unit to Tatapuram unit and the management is giving
preference to the Tatapuram employees while
providing work and the management has started a
separate laundry line for the workers transferred.
Hence transfer of workers from Calicut unit has not
affected the existing service condition of workers of
Tatapuram unit and it cannot be found that the
transfer of the 53 workmen from Calicut unit to
Tatapuram unit is illegal and unjustifiable. On the
basis of this finding, the workers are not entitled to
get any relief.
In the result, an award is passed holding that
the transfer of 53 employees from Hindustan Lever
Limited, Kozhikode is legal and justifiable and the
transfer of these employees will not adversely affect
the service conditions of the workmen at Tatapuram
factory and that they are not entitled to get any
relief. The award will take effect after one month
from the date of pronouncement in the open court”.
(underlining supplied)
W.P.(c)No.7296/09 6
After considering the award, I am satisfied that there is
absolutely nothing perverse in the findings of fact entered into
by the Labour Court. The findings are based on the evidence
on record and the Labour Court has given very cogent
reasons for the conclusions arrived at on the basis of evidence.
In the absence of any perversity in those findings I would not
be justified in interfering with the award in exercise of my
jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of
India.
In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in
this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd
W.P.(c)No.7296/09 7