CANARA BANKING CORPORATION LTD. versus U. VITTAL

Citation: [1964] 3 S.C.R. 268 · Decided: 22-04-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

196! 
~pril 21. 
268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. 
CANARA BANKING CORPORATION LTD. 
v. 
U. VITTAL 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, 
and K. C. DAS GUPTA JJ.) 
Indu•lrial Dispute-Transfer of a Bank employee not 
belonging to •ubordinate staff-Application of Sastry Award-
No abaolute prohibition-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 
19i7), s. 33A. 
The respondent, a Bank eI11ployec not belonging to 
Subordinate staff, was transferred from one station to another. 
In an application filed by him under s. 33A of the Industrial 
Disputcs;Act, he contended that the order of his transfer was 
mala fide and as was act of victimi>ation for his lawful trade 
union activities. 
He prayed for the cancellation of his transfer 
order. His prayer was accepted by the Labour Court which 
held that the transfer of the respondent was against the 
Sastry Award 
which 
provided 
that 
a clerk like 
the 
respondent could not be transferred outside the 
State or 
the language area in which he had been serving except with 
his consent. 
The appellant came to this Court by special leave. His 
contention was that the Sastry Award did not abs>lutely 
prnhibit the Bank from transferring workmen not belonging 
to the subordinate staff outside the State or the language area 
in which he had been serving 
except with hi• consent. 
Moreover, as the order of the Bank had been found to be 
bona fide, th~re was no contravention of the Sas try Award. 
Held that the Sastry Award makes a dictinction between 
the workmen belonging to the subordinate staff and others. 
While there was absolute prohibit;on against the transfer of 
the subordinate staff from their language area, there was no 
such absolute prohibition with regard to other workmen. 
The Sastry Award had laid down that 
"as far as P?"ible", 
the other workmen were not to be transferred outside their 
lauguagc area but that left discretion with the Banks to tranfer 
employee of the category of the respondent if the best hiterests 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT RBPORTS 
2~9 
of the Bank so required. It was for the Bank to decide how 
to distribute its manpower in Its be•t interests. Transfers 
were to be avoided if that could be done without sacrifying the 
interests of the Bank. 
CIVIL APPELLATE J URISDIOTION : Ci vii Appeal 
Nos. 755 of 1962. 
Appeal by special leave from the order dated 
March 5, 1962, of the Labour Court 
(Central) 
Ahmedabad, in Complaint No. 153 of 1961 in 
Reference No. 1 of 1960. 
N. V. Phadke, S. N. Andley, Rame.shwar Nath 
and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant. 
M. K. Ramamurthi, for the respondent. 
1963. April 22. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
1969 
. Ctmora Banl:U.z 
<Ar;.ralio,. Ltd. 
v. 
U. Vitt•I 
DAS GUPTA J.-This appeal by special leave 
Da• Gufll• 
is against the decision of the 
Labour 
Court, 
Ahmedabad, in an application by the respondent 
under s. 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act. 
The 
appellant is a banking company which has numerous 
branches all over southern India. The respondent 
joined the service of the appellant-bank on June 14, 
1951 and after confirmation in September 1952 was 
posted at Udipi. He was later transferred to Trichur; 
but on his representation 
was 
transferred to 
Mandvi Branch, 
Bombay, in July 
1956. On 
May 20, 1961, another order of transfer was made 
by the appellant· bank posting the respondent back 
at Trichur. The present application under s. 33A 
was made on August 26, 1961, praying that the 
transfer order of May 20, 1961 be cancelled and the 
respondent permitted to continue at Bombay. It 
was alleged in 
the application that the appellant 
made the transfer order mala fide and as an Act 
I 
1963 
--' 
Canara Banking · 
CerJoraticm ltd. 
v. 
U. Villel 
D•s Gupta J. 
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] voi.. 
of victimization for the lawful trade union activities 
of the complainant. It was also alleged that the 
transfer was made to deprive the complainant of 
his lawful dues. 
This application was made before the National 
Industrial Tribunal at 
Bombay 
before 
which 
proceedings in respect of an industrial dispute between 
the 
appellant-bank and its workmen was then 
pending. 
The National Tribunal 
transferred the 
application to the labour Court, Ahmedabad, for 
disposal. Before the Labour Court the appellant 
contended that there had been no contravention of 
the provisions of s. 33 of the Industrial Disputes 
Act as no change had been made 
in the service 
conditions of the respondent's , employme

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.