{"id":235833,"date":"1967-02-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1967-01-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-shri-rangavilas-motors-vs-shri-rangavilas-motors-p-ltd-on-1-february-1967"},"modified":"2016-05-07T06:24:26","modified_gmt":"2016-05-07T00:54:26","slug":"workmen-of-shri-rangavilas-motors-vs-shri-rangavilas-motors-p-ltd-on-1-february-1967","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-shri-rangavilas-motors-vs-shri-rangavilas-motors-p-ltd-on-1-february-1967","title":{"rendered":"Workmen Of Shri Rangavilas Motors … vs Shri Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd. … on 1 February, 1967"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Workmen Of Shri Rangavilas Motors … vs Shri Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd. … on 1 February, 1967<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1040, \t\t 1967 SCR (2) 528<\/div>\n
Author: S Sikri<\/div>\n
Bench: Sikri, S.M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nWORKMEN OF SHRI RANGAVILAS     MOTORS (P) LTD.& ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSHRI RANGAVILAS MOTORS (P) LTD.\t AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n01\/02\/1967\n\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M.\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nVAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.\n\nCITATION:\n 1967 AIR 1040\t\t  1967 SCR  (2) 528\n\n\nACT:\nIndustrial  Disputes Act (14 of 1947), s. 10(1) (c) and\t (d)\nproviso\t (1)  \"Affected\", if  means  \"interested\"--Order  of\nreference--Whether  should state why reference was  made  to\nLabour Court-\"Appropriate Government,\" test for deciding.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  second appellant was a workman in the workshop  of\t the\nfirst respondent dent company any in its Bangalore branch in\nthe  Mysore  State.   The  head,office\tof  the\t Company  at\nKrishnagiri,  in  the  Madras  State,  transferred  him\t  to\nKrishnagiri, contrary to the agreement that he would not  be\ntransferred  .from Bangalore for ten years.  On the  workman\nraising\t objections, the Company removed him  from  service.\nThe  Krishnagiri Motor Workers' Union, a majority  of  whose\nmembers\t numbering more than one hundred were  employees  of\nthe  Company,  took  up the  workman's\tgrievance,  and\t the\nGovernment of Mysore referred the industrial dispute to\t the\nLabour\tCourt under s. 10(1) (c) of the Industrial  Disputes\nAct, 1947.  One of the questions referred was : whether\t the\norder of transfer was illegal and if so\" Whether the workman\nwas entitled to \"reinstatement in the Bangalore branch\twith\nbenefits  of  back  wages\".  The Labour\t Court\tordered\t the\nreinstatement  of the workman in the Bangalore branch.\t The\nCompany challenged the award by a writ petition in the\tHigh\nCourt.\t The  High  Court  while  holding  that\t the  Mysore\nGovernment  was\t the  appropriate  Government  to  make\t the\nreference,  quashed the award on the grounds : (1) that\t the\nlegality of the removal of the workman was not the  -subject\nmatter\tof  reference,\tand (2) that the  reference  to\t the\nLabour\tCourt  could  not be justified\tunder  s.  10(1)(c),\nbecause the dispute fell within the Third and not the Second\nSchedule  to  the  Act; nor under the first  proviso  to  s.\n10(1)(d),  because, the Government did not act\tunder  -that\nproviso,  and  because, more than one hundred  persons\twere\ninterested  in\tand therefore likely to be affected  by\t the\ndispute.\nIn  appeal to this Court, the Company sought to support\t the\njudgment  of  the  High Court also on the  ground  that\t the\nMysore\t-Government  was not the appropriate  Government  to\nmake the reference.\nHELD : (1) The legality of the termination of the service of\nthe workman wag included in the order of reference. [532  D-\nE]\nThe words \"with benefit of back wages\" coupled with the word\n\"reinstatement\"\t are appropriate only to a case of  removal.\nOn  the facts of the case, the transfer of the\tworkman\t was\nillegal and so, his removal from service should be set aside\nand  be should be reinstated with benefits of  'back  wages.\n[532 F-G]\n(2)  The  reference to the Labour Court was valid under\t the\nfirst proviso to    s. 10(1) (d). [533 H]\n(a)  High  Court misinterpreted the proviso by equating\t the\ntwo  ,words  interested and affected.  The  members  of\t the\nUnion  which  sponsored\t the  cause  of\t the  workman\twere\ninterested in the dispute, but they would not necessarily be\naffected by the dispute. [533 F-G]\n\t\t\t    529\n(b)  It is not necessary that the order of reference  should\nexpressly state that it was because of the proviso that\t the\nreference  was being made to the Labour Court.\tIf it  could\nbe justified on the facts, there is nothing in the Act which\nmakes such a reference invalid. [533 E-F]\n(3)  The  Mysore Government was the -appropriate  Government\nto  make the reference, because, the subject matter of\tthe,\ndispute\t substantially arose within the jurisdiction of\t the\nMysore Government. [534 H]\nThe  proper  question to raise is : where  did\tthe  dispute\narise  and  not where was the dispute sponsored :  that\t is,\nwhether\t there\tis  a  nexus between  the  dispute  and\t the\nterritory  of the State making the reference. Ordinarily  if\nthere is a separate establishment and the workman is working\nin  that  establishment,  the dispute would  arise  at\tthat\nplace. [534 A-E]\nIndian Cable Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen,<\/a> [1962] Supp. 3  S.C.R.\n589,followed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1065 of
\n1965.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nFebruary 27, 1963 of the Mysore High Court in Writ  Petition
\nNo. 1096 of 1961.\n<\/p>\n
M.   K. Ramamurthi, for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
O.   P.\t Malhotra,  P.\tC. Bhathari and O.  C.\tMathur,\t for
\nrespondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nSikri,\tJ. This appeal by special leave is directed  against
\nthe  judgment of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition\t No.
\n1096  of  1961\tby which the High  Court  allowed  the\tWrit
\nPetition and quashed the impugned award dated June 30, 1961,
\nmade by the Labour Court, Bangalore, in Reference No. 51  of
\n1960.  In order to appreciate the points raised before us it
\nis necessary to give the relevant facts.\n<\/p>\n
The  second appellant before us, R. Mahalingam, was  engaged
\nas  a Foreman in the workshop of Sri Rangavilas\t Motors\t (P)
\nLtd.,  the first respondent, hereinafter referred to as\t the
\nCompany,  in  the month of April, 1956.\t By an\torder  dated
\nJanuary 21, 1960, Mahalingam was transferred from  Bangalore
\nto  Krishnagiri\t where\tthe head office of  the\t Company  is
\nsituated.   Mahalingam entered into correspondence with\t the
\nCompany\t alleging  that according to the conditions  of\t his
\nemployment  he\tcould not be transferred from  Bangalore  to
\nKrishnagiri.  Ultimately, the Company framed charges against
\nMahalingam  and removed him from service by an\torder  dated
\nApril  7, 1960.\t On April 8, 1960, Mahalingam complained  in
\nwriting\t to  the Assistant Commissioner of  Labour  who\t was
\nfunctioning as the Conciliation Officer at Bangalore.  Later
\non,  one Selvaraj took part in the conciliation\t proceedings
\non  the\t authority of the resolution dated  July  21,  1960,
\npassed at the General Body
\n530<\/span>
\nmeeting\t of  Krishnagiri Motor Workers’ Union,\tamong  whose
\nmembers\t 112  out  of 170 were\temployees  of  the  Company.
\nSelvaraj filed a statement of claims before the Conciliation
\nOfficer\t on  September 1, 1960.\t The  -Conciliation  Officer
\nreported to the Government that the conciliation proceedings
\nhad failed, and thereupon the State Government by its  order
\ndated  November\t 1,  1960, made in exercise  of\t the  powers
\nconferred  by  cl.  (c)\t of  sub-s. (1)\t of  s.\t 10  of\t the
\nIndustrial  Disputes  Act, 1947\t (XIV  of  1947)-hereinafter
\nreferred  to  as the Act-referred for  adjudication  by\t the
\nLabour Court, Bangalore, the following points in dispute :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      ”\t 1. Whether the order of the  management  of
\n\t      Sri   Rangavilas\tMotor  (Private)  Ltd.,\t  in
\n\t      transferring the workman Sri It.\t Mahalingam,
\n\t      Foreman, from their branch at Fort, Bangalore,
\n\t      to Krishnagiri, is illegal or unjustified.  If
\n\t      so,  is the workman entitled to  reinstatement
\n\t      in  Bangalore  Branch with  benefits  of\tback
\n\t      wages or to any other relief ?<\/p>\n
\t      2.    Is Sri R. Mahalingam, Foreman,  entitled
\n\t      to  arrears of increments and overtime  wages,
\n\t      if so, what is the amount he is entitled to ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Selvaraj,  inter  alia, prayed in his statement\t of  claims,
\nfiled on behalf of Mahalingam, as follows
\n\t      “…it is prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be
\n\t      pleased  to  direct  the\tsecond\tparty\t(the
\n\t      Company)\tto  cause the  payment\tof  overtime
\n\t      wages due, increments due (as mentioned in the
\n\t      annexure\tto  this  statement)  as  also\t the
\n\t      arrears of wages from 1-2-60 to 15-3-1960\t and
\n\t      order  payment of back wages with effect\tfrom
\n\t      the date of termination of service by  setting
\n\t      aside  the  said order of termination  and  to
\n\t      reinstate\t the  workman  with  continuity\t  of
\n\t      service.”\n<\/p>\n
The  Company,  in reply, contended that\t the  reference\t was
\nlimited\t only  to  the question of transfer,  and  hence  no
\nquestion of reinstatement or back wages could be adjudicated
\nupon.  Further, the Company contended that the reference was
\nbad  because  it  did  not  fall  under\t any  of  the  items
\nenumerated in the Second Schedule to the -Act.\tIt was\talso
\ncontended  that the dispute was an individual dispute.\t One
\nfurther\t objection  was\t raised\t to  the  effect  that\t the
\nreference should have been made to the National Tribunal and
\nnot to the Labour Court
\nThe  Labour  Court overruled all  the  objections  regarding
\njurisdiction  raised  by  the Company  and  made  the  award
\nholding\t that both the transfer as well as the removal\tfrom
\nservice of Mahalingam were illegal and that he Was  entitled
\nto overtime wages as well as
\n\t\t\t    531<\/span>
\nincrements.   The  Labour Court made the  following  further
\ndirection: –\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     “The  workman Sri Mahalingam should  be
\n\t      reinstated in   ore  branch  with\t full\tback
\n\t      wages  in continuity of the past\tservice\t and
\n\t      with same emoluments.  The second party  should
\n\t      also  pay the arrears of Rs.  4629\/27  towards
\n\t      the   overtime  wages  and  as  well  as\t the
\n\t      increments due.Rs. 384”. (sic.)
\nAs stated above, the Company filed writ petition challenging
\nthe award.  The High Court formulated the points which arose
\nout of the arguments addressed before it thus:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      1.    Whether  the  dispute  referred  by\t the
\n\t      State  Government\t to the Labour Court  is  an
\n\t      industrial dispute ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      2.    If it is such a dispute-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   Whether  the State Government of  Mysore
\n\t      was not the appropriate Government to make the
\n\t      reference ? and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   Whether  the reference should have\tbeen
\n\t      made  by the Central Government to a  National
\n\t      Tribunal\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      3.    Whether  any  dispute  relating  to\t the
\n\t      termination  of  the  service  of\t the  fourth
\n\t      respondent   is  included\t in  the  order\t  of
\n\t      reference ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       4.   Whether  the points of dispute  actually
\n\t      referred\tfall within the scope of  the  items
\n\t      enumerated  in  the  second  Schedule  of\t the
\n\t      Industrial  Disputes  Act\t and  are  therefore
\n\t      within\t the competence of the Labour  Court
\n\t      ?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\t       5.   Whether  on\t the  question\tof  transfer
\n\t      there was any dispute\tat\tall\t for
\n\t      adjudication
\nOn the\t  first\t point\tthe High Court,\t agreeing  with\t the
\nLabour Court, held that on the facts what was originally  an
\nindividual  grievance of Mahalingam did assume at  the\ttime
\nthe reference was made by the Government the character of an
\nindustrial dispute.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On  the first part of the second point, the High Court\theld
\nthat  the  State Government of Mysore  was  the\t appropriate
\nGovernment  to\tmake the reference.  On the second  par’  it
\nheld  that  it was for the Central Government to  decide  to
\nrefer  or not to refer the dispute but the State  Government
\nwhich  is  the\tappropriate Government in  relation  to\t the
\ndispute does not lose its power of -making ‘a reference.
\nOn the third point the High Court held that the question  of
\nlegality  or otherwise of the Company’s action\tin  removing
\nMahalingam  from  service  was\tnot  the  subject-matter  of
\nreference to the M2 Sup.  CI\/67-5
\n\t\t\t    532<\/span>
\nLabour Court and its award to the extent it dealt with\tthat
\ntopic was without jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
On  the\t fourth point, the-High Court held  that  the  first
\nproviso to cl.'(d) to s. 10 (1) of the Act did not apply and
\nthat  the dispute relating to increments and overtime  wages
\nwas  beyond the jurisdiction of the Labour ‘Court and  could
\nnot have been validly referred to it.  It also held that the
\ndispute\t regarding transfer was included in  the  expression
\n“rules\tof  discipline” enumerated as item 8  of  the  Third
\nSchedule,  and was therefore pot within the,  competence  of
\nthe Labour Court to adjudicate upon
\nin view of these findings the Award was quashed.   Regarding
\npoint  No. 5 formulated by it, the High Court observed\tthat
\nit was. unnecessary to examine that point, but as the matter
\nhad  been, argued at some length, the High Court stated\t its
\nopinion\t thereon.   In its opinion, there was no  scope\t far
\nmaking\tthe  order  of transfer the  subject-matter  of\t any
\ndispute.\n<\/p>\n
The  same  points  that were formulated by  the\t High  Court
\nwere-. argued before us.  Mr. Ramamurti, appearing on behalf
\nof  the appellants, urged regarding point No. 3 that on\t its
\ntrue  interpretation the order of reference was quite  clear
\nand  that  the\tquestion  of  termination  of  services\t  of
\nMahalingam was included in the order of reference.  We\thave
\nalready\t reproduced  the  order of  reference  and,  in\t our
\nopinion, there is force in what Mr. Ramamurti urges It seems
\nto  us that the order of reference is quite clear if  regard
\nis: had to the words “reinstatement in Bangalore branch with
\nbenefits of back wages.” If the words with benefits of\tback
\nwages”\tconsidered,and with respect,the High Court  did\t not
\nconsider them, the High Court’s conclusion might possibly be
\njustified.   It seems to us that by the time  the  reference
\ntame  to  be made everybody knew that  Mahalingam  had\tbeen
\nremoved\t from  service.\t The words “with  benefits  of\tback
\nwages”\t coup\tled  with  the\tword   “reinstatement”\t are
\nappropriate only to a case of  removal and not to a case  of
\ntransfer.  On the facts of this case  it is quite clear that
\nthe  contention\t of  Mahalingam was that  the  transfer\t was
\nillegal\t and  if the transfer as illegal, his  removal\tfrom
\nservice\t would fall automatically with the finding that\t the
\ntransfer  was  illegal, and one of the\tappropriate  reliefs
\nthat would be given would be reinstatement in the  Bangalore
\nBranch\twith  benefits\tof back wales.\tIn our\tview  it  is
\nbecause of the above considerations that the word  “removal”
\nwas  not expressly mentioned.  In this connection  the\tHigh
\nCourt relied on the provisions of s. 10(4) of the Act  which
\nreads as under
\n\t      “10(4)   Where  in  an  order   referring\t  an
\n\t      industrial dispute to a Labour Court, Tribunal
\n\t      or National Tribunal under this section or  in
\n\t      a subsequent order, the appropriate Government
\n\t      has  specified  the  ‘points  of\tdispute\t for
\n\t      adjudication, the Labour Court or the Tribunal
\n\t      or the National
\n\t\t\t\t   533<\/span>
\n\t      Tribunal,\t as the case may be,  shall  confine
\n\t      its  adjudication to those points and  matters
\n\t      inidental thereto.”\n<\/p>\n
We are unable to appreciate how this sub-section has any re-
\nlevance\t to  the question of construction of  the  order  of
\nreference made by the Government.  It is true that he points
\nin  dispute must be specified, but the point with  which  we
\nare  concerned is, whether as a matter of  construction\t the
\npoint in dispute has been specified or not, and according to
\nus the dispute regarding removal has been specified.
\nRegarding  the\tfourth point, with respect, the\t High  Court
\nmisinterpreted\tthe  first proviso to cl. (d)  to  s.”10(1).
\nThis proviso reads as follows
\n\t      “Provided\t that where the dispute\t relates  to
\n\t      any matter specified in the Third Schedule and
\n\t      is not likely to affect more than one  hundred
\n\t      workmen, the appropriate Government may, if it
\n\t      so thinks fit, make the reference to a  Labour
\n\t      Court under clause (c)
\nThe  High  Court  negative the, plea of\t Mahalingam  on\t two
\ngrounds: First that there is nothing either -in the order of
\nreference.  or\tin any, other material placed before  it  to
\nindicate that the Government have applied their mind to\t the
\napplicability  of the proviso to the facts of this  case  or
\nhave  actually acted pursuant to the proviso in\t making\t the
\nreferences to the Labour Court and secondly, that there\t can
\nbe  no\tdoubt  that  more than one  hundred.  per  sons\t are
\ninterested  in, and are therefore likely to be\taffected  by
\nthe  dispute in question.  In our view it is  not  necessary
\nthat  the order of reference should expressly state that  it
\nis because of the proviso that a reference is, being made to
\nthe  Labour Court, and if the reference can be justified  on
\nthe  facts, there is nothing in the Act which makes  such  a
\nreference  invalid.   The second reason given  by  the\tHigh
\nCourt,\twith respect is erroneous because it seems  to\thave
\nequated,  the words “interested’ and “,affected”.  It  would
\nbe  noticed that s. 10(1A) uses both the words\t“interested”
\nor  “affected”.\t  Section  10(5) also uses  both  the  words
\n“interested” or “affected”.  It seems to us that there is  a
\ndifference  in\tthe import of the words\t ”  interested”\t or,
\n“affected”.   The  Union  which sponsors  the  cause  of  an
\nindividual  workman  is interested in the  dispute  but\t the
\nworkmen who are the members of the Union are not necessarily
\naffected  by  the  dispute.  The dispute in  this  case\t was
\nregarding  the\tvalidity  of  the  transfer  and  consequent
\nremoval of the appellant.  The other workmen would naturally
\nbe  interested in the dispute but they are not\taffected  by
\nthis  dispute.\t In  our opinion, the High  Court  erred  in
\nholding that the first proviso to s. 10(1)(d) did not  apply
\nto the facts of this case.  In view of our decision on\tthis
\npoint,\tit is not necessary to go into the question  whether
\nthe  points in dispute fell within the second or  the  third
\nSchedule to the Act.\n<\/p>\n
534<\/span><\/p>\n
Therefore,  the appeal must succeed unless the\tCompany\t can
\nsatisfy\t us that the points decided against it\tshould\thave
\nbeen  decided  in its favour.  This takes us  to  the  other
\npoints.\t  Mr. O. P. Malhotra strongly urges that  the  State
\nGovernment  of Mysore was not the appropriate Government  to
\nmake  the  reference.  He .says that  although\tthe  dispute
\nstarted at Bangalore, the resolution sponsoring this dispute
\nwas passed in Krishnagiri, and,, that- the proper test to be
\napplied\t in  the case of individual disputes  is  where\t the
\ndispute\t  has  been sponsored.\tIt seems to us that  on\t the
\nfacts of this case  it\tis clear that there was\t a  separate
\nestablishment at ‘Bangalore   and  Mahalingam  was   working
\nthere.\tThere were a number of other workmen working in this
\nplace.\t The  order  of transfer, it is true,  was  made  in
\nKrishnagiri at the head office, but the order was to operate
\non  a  workman working in Bangalore.  In our view  the\tHigh
\nCourt was right in holding that the proper question to raise
\nis : Where did the dispute arise ?  Ordinarily, if there  is
\na separate establishment and the workman is working in\tthat
\nestablishment,\tthe dispute would arise at that\t place.\t  As
\nthe  High  Court  observed, there should  clearly  be  ‘some\n<\/p>\n
-nexus\tbetween the dispute and the territory of  the  State
\nand  not necessarily between the territory of the State\t and
\nthe industry concerning which the dispute arose.  This Court
\nin-  Indian  Cable  Co.\t Ltd.  v.  Its\tWorkmen<\/a>(1)  held  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t       “The Act contained no provisions\t  bearing on
\n\t      this  question, which must,  consequently,  be
\n\t      decided\ton  the\t principles  governing\t the
\n\t      jurisdiction of Courts to entertain actions or
\n\t      proceedings.  Dealing with a similar  question
\n\t      under the provisions of the Bombay  Industrial
\n\t      Relations\t Act, 1946, Chagla, C. J.,  observed
\n\t      in  Lalbhai  Tricumlal Mills Ltd. v.  Vin\t and
\n\t      Others [1956] 1 L.L.J. 557, 558
\n\t      ‘But What we are concerned with to decide\t is:
\n\t      where  did the dispute substantially  arise  ?
\n\t      Now,  the Act does not deal with the cause  of
\n\t      action, nor does it indicate what factors will
\n\t      confer  jurisdiction  upon the  labour  court.
\n\t      But   applying   the   well-known\t  tests\t  of
\n\t      jurisdiction, a Court, or Tribunal would\thave
\n\t      jurisdiction  if\tthe  parties  reside  within
\n\t      jurisdiction or if the -subject-matter of\t the
\n\t      dispute\t  substantially\t   arises     within
\n\t      jurisdiction.’
\n\t      In   our\t opinion,   those   principles\t are
\n\t      applicable  for deciding which of\t the  States
\n\t      has jurisdiction to make a reference under  s.
\n\t      10 of the Act”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Applying  the above principles to the facts of this case  it
\nis  quite. -clear that the subject-matter of the dispute  in
\nthis  case substantially -arose within the  jurisdiction  of
\nthe Mysore Government.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 589 : [1962] 1 L.L.J. 409.\n<\/p>\n
535<\/span><\/p>\n
Mr.  Malhotra  further urges that the High  Court  erred  in
\nholding that it was an industrial dispute.  We see no  force
\nin  this contention.  The High Court rightly  observed\tthat
\nonce the findings of fact recorded by the Labour; Court\t are
\naccepted, there is no doubt in law that in the circumstances
\nof this case, what was originally an individual grievance of
\nMahalingam did assume, at the time the reference was made by
\nthe Government, the character of an industrial dispute.
\nMr. Malhotra urges that the finding of the Labour Court
\nthat  the  transfer  was illegal was perverse.\t It  is\t not
\nnecessary  to go into this question because once it is\theld
\nthat   there  is  an  agreement\t between  the  Company\t and
\nMahalingam that he could not be transferred from  Bangalore,
\nthe  transfer would be bad.  The Labour Court  had  observed
\nthat one of the terms of agreement was that the Company\t had
\nagreed\tnot  to\t transfer Mahalingam to\t any  place  out  of
\nBangalore,  for\t a  period of ten  years;  the\tCompany\t had
\ntransferred Mahalingam from Bangalore to the head office  at
\nKrishnagiri   and  this\t action\t of  the  Company   was\t  in
\ncontravention of the terms of the agreement.
\nThen  Mr. Malhotra tried to urge the fifth point  formulated
\nby  the\t High Court.  This point was not  taken\t before\t the
\nLabour Court and we did not allow him to raise this point.’
\nIn  the result the appeal is allowed, judgment of  the\tHigh
\nCourt set aside and the Award of the Labour Court  restored.
\nThe  appellant\twill  have his costs here and  in  the\tHigh
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal allowed
\n536<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Workmen Of Shri Rangavilas Motors … vs Shri Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd. … on 1 February, 1967 Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1040, 1967 SCR (2) 528 Author: S Sikri Bench: Sikri, S.M. PETITIONER: WORKMEN OF SHRI RANGAVILAS MOTORS (P) LTD.& ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: SHRI RANGAVILAS MOTORS (P) LTD. AND ORS. DATE […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-235833","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nWorkmen Of Shri Rangavilas Motors ... vs Shri Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd. ... on 1 February, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-shri-rangavilas-motors-vs-shri-rangavilas-motors-p-ltd-on-1-february-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Workmen Of Shri Rangavilas Motors ... vs Shri Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd. ... on 1 February, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-shri-rangavilas-motors-vs-shri-rangavilas-motors-p-ltd-on-1-february-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1967-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-07T00:54:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-shri-rangavilas-motors-vs-shri-rangavilas-motors-p-ltd-on-1-february-1967#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-shri-rangavilas-motors-vs-shri-rangavilas-motors-p-ltd-on-1-february-1967\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Workmen Of Shri Rangavilas Motors … vs Shri Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd. … on 1 February, 1967\",\"datePublished\":\"1967-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-07T00:54:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-shri-rangavilas-motors-vs-shri-rangavilas-motors-p-ltd-on-1-february-1967\"},\"wordCount\":2760,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-shri-rangavilas-motors-vs-shri-rangavilas-motors-p-ltd-on-1-february-1967#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-shri-rangavilas-motors-vs-shri-rangavilas-motors-p-ltd-on-1-february-1967\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-shri-rangavilas-motors-vs-shri-rangavilas-motors-p-ltd-on-1-february-1967\",\"name\":\"Workmen Of Shri Rangavilas Motors ... vs Shri Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd. ... on 1 February, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1967-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-07T00:54:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-shri-rangavilas-motors-vs-shri-rangavilas-motors-p-ltd-on-1-february-1967#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-shri-rangavilas-motors-vs-shri-rangavilas-motors-p-ltd-on-1-february-1967\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-shri-rangavilas-motors-vs-shri-rangavilas-motors-p-ltd-on-1-february-1967#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Workmen Of Shri Rangavilas Motors … vs Shri Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd. … on 1 February, 1967\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Workmen Of Shri Rangavilas Motors ... vs Shri Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd. ... on 1 February, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-shri-rangavilas-motors-vs-shri-rangavilas-motors-p-ltd-on-1-february-1967","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Workmen Of Shri Rangavilas Motors ... vs Shri Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd. ... on 1 February, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-shri-rangavilas-motors-vs-shri-rangavilas-motors-p-ltd-on-1-february-1967","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1967-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-07T00:54:26+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-shri-rangavilas-motors-vs-shri-rangavilas-motors-p-ltd-on-1-february-1967#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-shri-rangavilas-motors-vs-shri-rangavilas-motors-p-ltd-on-1-february-1967"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Workmen Of Shri Rangavilas Motors … vs Shri Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd. … on 1 February, 1967","datePublished":"1967-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-07T00:54:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-shri-rangavilas-motors-vs-shri-rangavilas-motors-p-ltd-on-1-february-1967"},"wordCount":2760,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-shri-rangavilas-motors-vs-shri-rangavilas-motors-p-ltd-on-1-february-1967#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-shri-rangavilas-motors-vs-shri-rangavilas-motors-p-ltd-on-1-february-1967","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-shri-rangavilas-motors-vs-shri-rangavilas-motors-p-ltd-on-1-february-1967","name":"Workmen Of Shri Rangavilas Motors ... vs Shri Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd. ... on 1 February, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1967-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-07T00:54:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-shri-rangavilas-motors-vs-shri-rangavilas-motors-p-ltd-on-1-february-1967#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-shri-rangavilas-motors-vs-shri-rangavilas-motors-p-ltd-on-1-february-1967"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-shri-rangavilas-motors-vs-shri-rangavilas-motors-p-ltd-on-1-february-1967#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Workmen Of Shri Rangavilas Motors … vs Shri Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd. … on 1 February, 1967"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235833","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=235833"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235833\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=235833"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=235833"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=235833"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}