M/S. KUNDAN SUGAR MILLS versus ZIYAUDDIN AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1960] 2 S.C.R. 918 · Decided: 09-02-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

February, 9 
• 
918 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1960 (2)] 
M/S. KUNDAN SUGAR MILLS 
v. 
ZIYAUDDIN AND OTHERS. 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBJlA RAO, AND 
K. c. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) 
Industrial Dispute-Rights of employer lo transfer a wor/mian-
If implicit in every contract of service. 
The General Manager of the appellant Mills ordered the 
transfer of four workmen from the appellant mill to a new mill, 
which had been purchased subsequently. The only connection 
between the two mills was the identity of ownership and, but 
for it, one had nothing to do with the other. The concerned 
workmen protested to.the said order of transfer and did .not 
acceed to the request, thereupon they were served with notice 
for disobedience of standing orders and were called upon for 
explanation which the workmen did and thereafter they were 
dismissed from service. 
The Labour Appellate Tribunal found 
that the management had no right to transfer the workmen to 
the new factory and therefore the order dismissing them was 
illegal. The appellants came up by special leave before the 
Supreme Court and contended that the right to transfer an 
employee by an employer from one of his concerns to another is 
implicit in every contract of service. The question is \Vhether a 
person employed in a factory can be transferred to some other 
independent concern started by the same employer at a stage 
subsequent to the date of the employment. 
Held, that apart from any statutory provision, the right of 
an employee and an employer are governed by the terms of 
contracts between them or by the terms necessarily implied 
therefrom; but in the absence of an express agreement between 
the employer and employees it cannot necessarily be implied that 
the employer has the right to transfer the employee to any of its 
concerns in any place, and that the employee has a duty to join 
the concern to which he may be transferred. 
In the instant case, it was not a condition of service of 
employment of the concerned workmen either express or implied 
that the employer had the right to transfer them to a new 
concern started by the employer subsequent to the date of the 
employment. 
Alexandre Bouzourou v, The Ottoman Bank, A.LR. 1930 P.C. 
nS, Mary (Anamalai :Plantation Workers' Union) v. Selaliparai 
Estate, (1956) I.L.L.J. 243 and Bata Shoe Company, Ltd v. Ali 
Hasan, (1956) I.L.L.J. 278, discussed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal 
No. 136 of 1958. 
Appeal by special leave from the decision dated 
April 30, 1956, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of 
India at Lucknow in Appeal No. III-45 of 1956, 
-
-
• 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
919 
ansmg out of the award dated February 6, 1956 
of the State Indmitrial Tribunal, Allahabad, in refere-
nce No. 96of1955. 
Ram Lal Anand, J.M. Lal and S. S. Sulcla, for the 
appellants. 
B. D. Sharma, for respondents Nos. 1to5. 
O.P. Lal and G. N. Dikshit, for respondent No. 6. 
1960. February 9. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered dy 
SuBBA RAO, J.-This is an appeal by special leave 
against the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of 
India setting aside the award of the Industrial 
Tribunal, Allahabad, and directing the re-instatement 
of the workers in Kundan Sugar Mills at Amroha. 
" Kundan Sugar Mills" is a partnership concern and 
owns a sugar mill at Amroha. The respondents 1 to 
4 were employed by the appellant as seasonal masons 
in the year 1946. In 1951 the partners of the appel-
lant-Mills purchased the building machinery and 
other equipment of another sugar mill at Kiccha' in 
the district of Nainital. They closed the said mill at 
Kiccha and started it at Bulandshahr. 
The new 
factory was named Pannijee Sugar & General Mills, 
Bulandshahr. On January 19, 1955, the General 
Manager of the appellant-Mills ordered the transfer of 
the respondents 1 to 4 from the appellant-Mills to the 
new mill at Bulandshahr. The said respondents 
through their representative, the fifth respondent, 
protested to the General Manager against the said 
transfer. But the General Manager, by his letter 
dated 
January 22/24, 1955, 
insisted upon their 
joining the new mill at Bulandshahr. But the said 
respondents did not accede to his request. On 
January 28, 1955, the General Manager served a 
notice on the respondents 1 to 4 stating that they had 
disobeyed his orders and thereby committed miscon-
duct under Standing Order No. L(a). They were asked 
to submit their explanation as to why action should 
not be tak

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