CONDITIONS OF SERVICE TO REMAIN UNCHANGED DURING PENDENCY OF THE DISPUTE

Short article consist of the circumstances in which employer should not alter service conditions to the prejudice of the workmen, when an industrial dispute is/are pending.

Sub-section 1(a) of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 clearly provides “(1) During the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer or a Board or of any proceedings before an arbitrator or a labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal is respect of an industrial dispute, no employer shall –

(a) in regard to any matter connected with the dispute, alter, to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the commencement of such proceedings; or”

It is important to understand the features which must be present to attract section 33 (1) (a) or in other words features which must be present to attract the provision that employer should not alter to the prejudice of the workmen, when an industrial dispute is/are pending.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhavnagar Municipality V Alibhai Karimbhai and Others12 had provided features which must be present to attract section 33(1) (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(1) There is a proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute pending before the Tribunal.

(2) Conditions of service of the workmen applicable immediately before the commencement of the Tribunal proceeding are altered.

(3) The alteration of the conditions of service is in regard to a matter connected with the pending industrial dispute.

(4) The workmen whose conditions of service are altered are concerned in the pending industrial dispute.

(5) The alteration of the conditions of service is to the prejudice of the workmen.

Prepared by: S. Hemanth

Advocate at Hemanth & Associates

WHETHER COURT CAN INTERFER IN TRANSFER MATTERS

The Courts do not ordinarily interfere in transfer matters. But, transfer in contrary to the contract of services cannot be allowed. Consequently it is important to understand the law with respect to the transfer matters.

The Hon’ble Division bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Indian Telephone Industries V Prof. P.N Shetty11 had provided that an order of transfer can be challenged on the following grounds:

(1) The transfer is in violation of conditions of service or contract;

(2) It is actuated by malafide or actuated by some other ulterior motive not connected with the business interest of the management; and

(3) The transfer effects a change in the conditions of service by subjecting the employee to more onerous conditions.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pearlite Liners Private Limited V Manorama Sirsi11a, held “unless there is a term to the contrary in the contract of service, a transfer order is a normal incidence of service”.

Prepared by: S. Hemanth

Advocate at Hemanth & Associates