M/S. Divgi Metal Wares Ltd. Versus M/S. Divgi Metal Wares Employees Association & Anr. : Read Full Judgment
The case involves a legal dispute between M/S. Divgi Metal Wares Ltd. (the appellant), a company manufacturing automobile gears, and M/S. Divgi Metal Wares Employees Association & Anr. (the respondents), a trade union representing the company’s workers. The dispute revolves around the transfer of employees from one factory to another within the company.
Initially, the company’s Standing Orders, certified on 03.07.1989, allowed for the transfer of employees within the same unit or establishment. However, in 1999, modifications were made to the Standing Orders, deleting provisions that permitted transfers between different units/factories/establishments of the company. This amendment triggered a legal challenge by the company before the Industrial Tribunal.
The Industrial Tribunal partly allowed the company’s appeal against the modifications in 2001, setting aside the 1999 amendment. Despite this, disputes arose regarding transfers of employees from the Sirsi Factory to the Pune Factory. These disputes led to writ petitions and appeals before the Karnataka High Court.
The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, while addressing the legality of the transfers, held the 1999 amendment unsustainable. The court reasoned that since the Schedule of the relevant Act did not contain provisions regarding transfers, the 1999 amendment was not tenable.
However, the Supreme Court, upon hearing the appeal, referred to the precedent set in the case of Cipla Ltd. vs. Jayakumar R., where it was clarified that the terms of appointment allowing transfers to any establishment of the company override any conflicting provisions in the Standing Orders. Therefore, even if the 1999 amendment was deemed invalid, the transfers were held to be valid based on the terms of appointment.
The Supreme Court ultimately quashed the High Court’s judgment, upheld the company’s appeal, and dismissed the respondents’ writ petition. It clarified that the issue of the Certifying Officer’s power to provide transfer clauses in Standing Orders was not addressed in this judgment. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with no orders as to costs.
DISCLAIMER: This interpretation is based on available information and legal understanding, not legal advice. Readers should consult original court documents and legal experts for precise understanding.
