Case: Workmen Of Shri Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd.&amp; Anr Vs. Shri Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd. And Ors

placed before it to indicate that the Government have applied their mind to the applicability of the proviso to the facts of this case or have actually acted pursuant to the proviso in making the references to the Labour Court, and secondly, that there can be no doubt that more than one hundred persons are interested in and are therefore likely to be affected by the dispute in question. In our view it is not necessary that the order of reference should expressly state that it is because of the proviso that a reference is being made to the Labour Court, and if the reference can be justified on the facts, there is nothing in the Act which makes such a reference invalid. The second reason given by the High Court, with respect, is erroneous because it seems to have equated the words "interested" and "affected". It would be noticed that S. 10(1A). uses both the words "interested" or "affected". S. 10(5) also uses both the words "interested" or "affected". It seems to us that there is a difference in the import of the words "interested" or "affected". The Union which sponsors the cause of an individual workman is interested in the dispute but the workmen who are the members of the Union are not necessarily affected by the dispute. The dispute in this case was regarding the validity of the transfer and consequent removal of the appellant. The other workmen would naturally be interested in the dispute but they are not affected by this dispute. In our opinion, the High Court erred in holding that the first proviso to S. 10(1)(d) did not apply to the facts of this case. In view of our decision on this point, it is not necessary to go into the question whether the points in dispute fell within the second or the third Schedule to the Act. 14. Therefore, the appeal must succeed unless the Company can satisfy us that the points decided against it should have been decided in its favour. This takes us to the other points. Mr. O. P. Malhotra strongly urges that the State Government of Mysore was not the appropriate Government to make the reference. He says that although the dispute started at Bangalore, the resolution sponsoring this dispute was passed in Krishnagiri, and, that the proper test to be applied in the case of individual disputes is where the dispute has been sponsored. It seems to us that on the facts of this case it is clear that there was a separate establishment at Bangalore and Mahalingam was working there. There were a number of other workmen working in this place. The order of transfer, it is true, was made in Krishnagiri at the Head-office, but the order was to operate on a workman working in Bangalore. In our view the High Court was right in holding that the proper question to raise is : where did the dispute arise ? Ordinarily, if there is a separate establishment and the workman is working in that establishment, the dispute would arise at that place. As the High Court observed, there should clearly be some nexus between the dispute and the territory of the State and not necessarily between the territory of the State and the industry concerning which the dispute arose. This Court in Indian Cable Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, (1962) I Lab LJ 409 (SC) held as follows:"The Act contained no provisions bearing on this question, which must, consequently, be decided on the principles governing the jurisdiction of Courts to entertain actions or proceedings. Dealing with a similar question under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, Chagla, C. J., observed in Lalbhai Tricumlal Mills Ltd. v. Vin, 1956-1 Lab LJ 557, 558 : (AIR 1955 Bom 463 at p. 464) : "But what we are concerned with to decide is : where did the dispute substantially arise ? Now, the Act does not deal with the cause of action, nor does it indicate what factors will confer jurisdiction upon the labour Court. But applying the well-known tests of jurisdiction, a Court or Tribunal would have jurisdiction if the parties reside within jurisdiction or if the subject-matter of the dispute substantially arises within jurisdiction". In our opinion, those principles are applicable for deciding which of the States has jurisdiction to make a reference under S. 10 of the Act". Applying the above principles to the facts of this case it is quite clear that the subject-matter of the dispute in this case substantially arose within the jurisdiction of the Mysore Government. 15. Mr. Malhotra further urges that the High Court erred in holding that it was an industrial dispute. We see no force in this contention. The High Court rightly observed that once the findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court are accepted, there is no doubt in law that in the circumstances of this case, what was originally an individual grievance of Mahaligam did assume at the time the reference was made by the Government, the character of an industrial dispute. 16. Mr. Malhotra urges that the finding of the Labour Court that the transfer was illegal was perverse. It is not necessary to go into this question because once it is held that there is an agreement between the Company and Mahalingam that he could not be transferred from Bangalore, the transfer would be bad. The Labour Court had observed that one of the terms of agreement was that the Company had agreed not to transfer Mahalingam to an place out of Bangalore for a period of ten years; the Company had transferred Mahalingam from Bangalore to the Head Office at Krishnagiri and this action of the Company was in contravention of the terms of the agreement. 17. Then Mr. Malhotra tried to urge the fifth point formulated by the High Court. This point was not taken before the Labour Court and we did not allow him to raise this point.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]We have already reproduced the order of reference and,in our opinion, there is force in what Mr. Ramamurti urges. It seems to us that the order of reference is quite clear if regard is had to the words "re-instatement in Bangalore branch with benefits of back wages if the words "with benefits of back wages" are not considered, and with respect, the High Court did not consider them, the High Courts conclusion might possibly be justified. It seems to us that by the time the reference came to be made everybody knew that Mahalingam had been removed from service. The words "with benefits of back wages" coupled with the word "re-instatement" are appropriate only to a case of removal and not to a case of transfer. On the facts of this case it is quite clear that the contention of Mahalingam was that the transfer was illegal and if the transfer was illegal, his removal from service would fall automatically with the finding that the transfer was illegal, and one of the appropriate reliefs that would be given would be re-instatement in the Bangalore Branch with benefits of back wages. In our view it is because of the above considerations that the word removal was not expressly mentioned12. We are unable to appreciate how this sub-section has any relevance to the question of construction of the order of reference made by the Government. It is true that the points in dispute must be specified, but the point with which we are concerned is, whether as a matter of construction the point in dispute has been specified or not, and according to us the dispute regarding removal has been specifiedIn our opinion, the High Court erred in holding that the first proviso to S. 10(1)(d) did not apply to the facts of this case. In view of our decision on this point, it is not necessary to go into the question whether the points in dispute fell within the second or the third Schedule to the Act14. Therefore, the appeal must succeed unless the Company can satisfy us that the points decided against it should have been decided in its favour. This takes us to the other pointsMr. O. P. Malhotra strongly urges that the State Government of Mysore was not the appropriate Government to make the reference. He says that although the dispute started at Bangalore, the resolution sponsoring this dispute was passed in Krishnagiri, and, that the proper test to be applied in the case of individual disputes is where the dispute has been sponsored. It seems to us that on the facts of this case it is clear that there was a separate establishment at Bangalore and Mahalingam was working there. There were a number of other workmen working in this place. The order of transfer, it is true, was made in Krishnagiri at the Head-office, but the order was to operate on a workman working in Bangalore. In our view the High Court was right in holding that the proper question to raise is : where did the dispute arise ? Ordinarily, if there is a separate establishment and the workman is working in that establishment, the dispute would arise at that placeApplying the above principles to the facts of this case it is quite clear that the subject-matter of the dispute in this case substantially arose within the jurisdiction of the Mysore Government15. Mr. Malhotra further urges that the High Court erred in holding that it was an industrial dispute. We see no force in this contention. The High Court rightly observed that once the findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court are accepted, there is no doubt in law that in the circumstances of this case, what was originally an individual grievance of Mahaligam did assume at the time the reference was made by the Government, the character of an industrial dispute16. Mr. Malhotra urges that the finding of the Labour Court that the transfer was illegal was perverse. It is not necessary to go into this question because once it is held that there is an agreement between the Company and Mahalingam that he could not be transferred from Bangalore, the transfer would be bad. The Labour Court had observed that one of the terms of agreement was that the Company had agreed not to transfer Mahalingam to an place out of Bangalore for a period of ten years; the Company had transferred Mahalingam from Bangalore to the Head Office at Krishnagiri and this action of the Company was in contravention of the terms of the agreement17. Then Mr. Malhotra tried to urge the fifth point formulated by the High Court. This point was not taken before the Labour Court and we did not allow him to raise this point.