CAPARO ENGINEERING INDIA LTD. versus UMMED SINGH LODHI AND ANR.

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 780 · Decided: 26-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
780
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 780
780
CAPARO ENGINEERING INDIA LTD.
v.
UMMED SINGH LODHI AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5829-5830 of 2021)
OCTOBER 26, 2021
[M. R. SHAH AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: s.9A – Transfer order –
Amounting to illegal change under s.9A – Respondent-workmen
employed in the Dewas factory of appellant as labourer – Order of
transfer to Chopanki, which is 900 Kms away from Dewas – On
transfer, after training, workmen were to work as supervisor –
Industrial dispute – Labour court found that the workmen-nine in
number were transferred from Dewas with intention to reduce the
number of persons employed at Dewas and such an act was covered
by Clause 11 of Schedule 4 of the I.D. Act and since no notice of
change was given, the transfer orders were in violation of s.9A of
the I.D. Act – Labour Court also specifically found on appreciation
of evidence that transfer would change the nature of work since
the workmen were employed as labourers at Dewas and on transfer
at Chopanki, they would be working as Supervisor – Employer-
management unsuccessfully challenged order of Labour Court
before the High Court – Hence instant appeal – Held: The order
transferring the respective workmen from Dewas to Chopanki at
about 900 Kms. away was in violation of s.9A read with Fourth
Schedule of the ID Act and was arbitrary, mala fide and victimization
– By such transfer, their status as “workman” would change to that
of “supervisor” – Thus, by such a change after their transfer to
Chopanki and after they work as supervisor they would be deprived
of the beneficial provisions of the ID Act and, therefore, the nature
of service conditions/service would be changed – Even from the
judgment and award passed by the Labour Court as well as the
impugned judgment and order passed by the Single Judge, it can
be seen that the appellant/employer has failed to justify the transfer
from Dewas to Chopanki, which is at a distance of 900 Kms. and
that too at the fag end of their service career – Every aspect was
dealt with and considered in detail by the Labour Court as well as
by the Single Judge of the High Court.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
781
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 There are concurrent findings of fact recorded
by the Labour Court as well as Single Judge of the High Court
that the order transferring the respective workmen from Dewas
to Chopanki was arbitrary, mala fide, amounted to victimization,
unfair labour practice and in violation of Section 9A of the
Industrial Disputes Act. On appreciation of evidence, more
particularly, while considering the deposition of DW-1, DW-2 and
depositions of PW-1 and PW-2, the Labour Court came to the
findings that the respective respondents-workmen were in the
category of workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes
Act and, therefore, they were entitled to protection under the
Industrial Disputes Act; that by transferring them from Dewas to
Chopanki, there would be change of work and, therefore, there
would be change in the conditions of service and, the same was
in violation of Section 9A read with Clause 11 of the Fourth
Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act; that by transferring the
nine employees-workmen, there will be reduction of workmen at
Dewas factory; that at Dewas, the workmen were employed in
the capacity of a workman and the work of manufacturing precision
pipes is done whereas at Chopanki manufacturing of nut and bolts
is done. The said findings by the Labour Court are on appreciation
of evidence on record, which as such cannot be said to be perverse
and/or contrary to the evidence on record. It emerge from the
evidence on record that the respective respondents – employees
were employed at Dewas and working at Dewas for more than 25
to 30 years; all of them were transferred suddenly and that too at
the fag end of their service career; that the place where they
were transferred had no educational and medical facilities and
that had no residential area within 40-50 Kms. from the plant
with no means of transport. [Para 7 and 7.1][791-A-H; 792-A]
1.2 The order of transfer dated 13.01.2015 transferring the
respective workman from Dewas to Chopanki, which is at about
900 Kms. away is in violation of Section 9A read with Fourth
Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act and is arbitrary, mala fide
and victimization. By such transfer, their status as “workman”
would be changed to that of “supervisor”. By such 

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