# 196! ~pril 21. 268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. CANARA BANKING CORPORATION LTD v. U. VITTAL

- **Citation:** [1964] 3 S.C.R. 268
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962-03-05
- **Case number:** CIVIL APPELLATE J URISDIOTION : Ci vii Appeal Nos. 755 of 1962
- **Bench:** P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. N. Wanchoo, K. C. Das Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/196-pril-21-268-supreme-court-reports-1964-vol-canara-banking-corporation-ltd-v-2889
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Indu•lrial Dispute-Transfer of a Bank employee not
belonging to •ubordinate staff-Application of Sastry AwardNo abaolute prohibition-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of
19i7), s. 33A.
The respondent, a Bank eI11ployec not belonging to
Subordinate staff, was transferred from one station to another.
In an application filed by him under s. 33A of the Industrial
Disputcs;Act, he contended that the order of his transfer was
mala fide and as was act of victimi>ation for his lawful trade
union activities.
He prayed for the cancellation of his transfer
order. His prayer was accepted by the Labour Court which
held that the transfer of the respondent was against the
Sastry Award
which
provided
that
a clerk like
the
respondent could not be transferred outside the
State or
the language area in which he had been serving except with
his consent.
The appellant came to this Court by special leave. His
contention was that the Sastry Award did not abs>lutely
prnhibit the Bank from transferring workmen not belonging
to the subordinate staff outside the State or the language area
in which he had been serving
except with hi• consent.
Moreover, as the order of the Bank had been found to be
bona fide, th~re was no contravention of the Sas try Award.
Held that the Sastry Award makes a dictinction between
the workmen belonging to the subordinate staff and others.
While there was absolute prohibit;on against the transfer of
the subordinate staff from their language area, there was no
such absolute prohibition with regard to other workmen.
The Sastry Award had laid down that
"as far as P?"ible",
the other workmen were not to be transferred outside their
lauguagc area but that left discretion with the Banks to tranfer
employee of the category of the respondent if the best hiterests
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT RBPORTS
2~9
of the Bank so required. It was for the Bank to decide how
to distribute its manpower in Its be•t interests. Transfers
were to be avoided if that could be done without sacrifying the
interests of the Bank.
CIVIL APPELLATE J URISDIOTION : Ci vii Appeal
Nos. 755 of 1962.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated
March 5, 1962, of the Labour Court
(Central)
Ahmedabad, in Complaint No. 153 of 1961 in
Reference No. 1 of 1960.
N. V. Phadke, S. N. Andley, Rame.shwar Nath
and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant.
M. K. Ramamurthi, for the respondent.
1963. April 22.
The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
1969
. Ctmora Banl:U.z
<Ar;.ralio,. Ltd.
v.
U. Vitt•I
DAS GUPTA J.-This appeal by special leave
Da• Gufll•
is against the decision of the
Labour
Court,
Ahmedabad, in an application by the respondent
under s. 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The
appellant is a banking company which has numerous
branches all over southern India. The respondent
joined the service of the appellant-bank on June 14,
1951 and after confirmation in September 1952 was
posted at Udipi. He was later transferred to Trichur;
but on his representation
was
transferred to
Mandvi Branch,
Bombay, in July
1956. On
May 20, 1961, another order of transfer was made
by the appellant· bank posting the respondent back
at Trichur. The present application under s. 33A
was made on August 26, 1961, praying that the
transfer order of May 20, 1961 be cancelled and the
respondent permitted to continue at Bombay. It
was alleged in
the application that the appellant
made the transfer order mala fide and as an Act
I
1963
--'
Canara Banking ·
CerJoraticm ltd.
v.
U. Villel
D•s Gupta J.
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] voi..
of victimization for the lawful trade union activities
of the complainant. It was also alleged that the
transfer was made to deprive the complainant of
his lawful dues.
This application was made before the National
Industrial Tribunal at
Bombay
before
which
proceedings in respect of an industrial dispute between
the
appellant-bank and its workmen was then
pending.
The National Tribunal
transferred the
application to the labour Court, Ahmedabad, for
disposal. Before the Labour C

## Text

196!
~pril 21.
268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
CANARA BANKING CORPORATION LTD.
v.
U. VITTAL
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO,
and K. C. DAS GUPTA JJ.)
Indu•lrial Dispute-Transfer of a Bank employee not
belonging to •ubordinate staff-Application of Sastry AwardNo abaolute prohibition-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of
19i7), s. 33A.
The respondent, a Bank eI11ployec not belonging to
Subordinate staff, was transferred from one station to another.
In an application filed by him under s. 33A of the Industrial
Disputcs;Act, he contended that the order of his transfer was
mala fide and as was act of victimi>ation for his lawful trade
union activities.
He prayed for the cancellation of his transfer
order. His prayer was accepted by the Labour Court which
held that the transfer of the respondent was against the
Sastry Award
which
provided
that
a clerk like
the
respondent could not be transferred outside the
State or
the language area in which he had been serving except with
his consent.
The appellant came to this Court by special leave. His
contention was that the Sastry Award did not abs>lutely
prnhibit the Bank from transferring workmen not belonging
to the subordinate staff outside the State or the language area
in which he had been serving
except with hi• consent.
Moreover, as the order of the Bank had been found to be
bona fide, th~re was no contravention of the Sas try Award.
Held that the Sastry Award makes a dictinction between
the workmen belonging to the subordinate staff and others.
While there was absolute prohibit;on against the transfer of
the subordinate staff from their language area, there was no
such absolute prohibition with regard to other workmen.
The Sastry Award had laid down that
"as far as P?"ible",
the other workmen were not to be transferred outside their
lauguagc area but that left discretion with the Banks to tranfer
employee of the category of the respondent if the best hiterests
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT RBPORTS
2~9
of the Bank so required. It was for the Bank to decide how
to distribute its manpower in Its be•t interests. Transfers
were to be avoided if that could be done without sacrifying the
interests of the Bank.
CIVIL APPELLATE J URISDIOTION : Ci vii Appeal
Nos. 755 of 1962.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated
March 5, 1962, of the Labour Court
(Central)
Ahmedabad, in Complaint No. 153 of 1961 in
Reference No. 1 of 1960.
N. V. Phadke, S. N. Andley, Rame.shwar Nath
and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant.
M. K. Ramamurthi, for the respondent.
1963. April 22.
The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
1969
. Ctmora Banl:U.z
<Ar;.ralio,. Ltd.
v.
U. Vitt•I
DAS GUPTA J.-This appeal by special leave
Da• Gufll•
is against the decision of the
Labour
Court,
Ahmedabad, in an application by the respondent
under s. 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The
appellant is a banking company which has numerous
branches all over southern India. The respondent
joined the service of the appellant-bank on June 14,
1951 and after confirmation in September 1952 was
posted at Udipi. He was later transferred to Trichur;
but on his representation
was
transferred to
Mandvi Branch,
Bombay, in July
1956. On
May 20, 1961, another order of transfer was made
by the appellant· bank posting the respondent back
at Trichur. The present application under s. 33A
was made on August 26, 1961, praying that the
transfer order of May 20, 1961 be cancelled and the
respondent permitted to continue at Bombay. It
was alleged in
the application that the appellant
made the transfer order mala fide and as an Act
I
1963
--'
Canara Banking ·
CerJoraticm ltd.
v.
U. Villel
D•s Gupta J.
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] voi..
of victimization for the lawful trade union activities
of the complainant. It was also alleged that the
transfer was made to deprive the complainant of
his lawful dues.
This application was made before the National
Industrial Tribunal at
Bombay
before
which
proceedings in respect of an industrial dispute between
the
appellant-bank and its workmen was then
pending.
The National Tribunal
transferred the
application to the labour Court, Ahmedabad, for
disposal. Before the Labour Court the appellant
contended that there had been no contravention of
the provisions of s. 33 of the Industrial Disputes
Act as no change had been made
in the service
conditions of the respondent's , employment
and·
further that the transfer had been made bona fide
on account" of sheer business considerations and
exigencies of business. It was also contended that
the order of transfer made by the bank did not
offend the terms of the Sastry Award on the
question
of transfer of Bank employees.
The
Labour Court held that under the terms of the:
Sastry Award. t~e .appellant'~ right to transfer his
employees was lfm!led to this extent that a clerk
like the respondent could not be transferred outside
the State or language area in which he had been
serving except with his consent. Holding that there
had been no such consent, it came to the conclusion
that the conditions of service of the respondent had
been altered in a manner not in accordance with the
standing order contained in the -Sastry Award.
Proceeding next on the assumption that the Sastry
Award permitted the Bank to transfer clerks outside
the State or the language area when it was in the
interests of the Bank's business, it considered the
question whether the bank had no other alternative
but to transfer this particular clerk outside the State
or the language area in which he had been serving
and came to the conclusion that this had not been
..
...
3 s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
271
established by the Bank. The Court rejected the
allegation that
the transfer had been made to
victimize the
respondent for his union activities.
Being of opinion however that by the transfer the
appellant had materially altered the respondent's
service conditions and this alteration was
not in
accordance with Sastry Award, the Court directed
the bank to caned the transfer order and to re-transfer
the complainant to Mandvi Branch, J;!ombay. The
Bank has now appealed against this direction.
The relevant direction in the Saatry Award on
the question of transfer is in these words :
"We direct that in general the policy should
be to limit the transfers to minimum consistent
with the banking needs and efficiency. So far
as members of the subordinate establishment
are concerned there should be no transfers
ordinarily and if there are any transfers a( all,
they should not be beyond the language
area of the person so transferred. We further
direct that even in the case of workmen not
belonging to the· subordinate staff, as far as
possible there should be no transfer outside the
State or the language areas in which the
employee has been serving except, of course,
with his consent."
It is not disputed that these directions were
binding on the appellant· bank nor is it disputed
before us that these directions amounted to "standing
orders" applicable to Bank's workmen withiu the
meaning of s. 33 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
It cannot also be doubted that the result of the
transfer would be a material
alteration in the
respondent's conditions of service.
Two contentions are urged before us in support
of the appeal. The fint is that the Labour Court
196!
c ... .,. IJ.nkit1t '
C.rloraliMI LU.
••
U. JTilt•I
Das G•;ta J,
/HJ
, CQnara Bonkinz
C,rJualiott Ltd
v.
U. Villa/
D., Gripta I.
~~2 SUPREME COURt REPORTS [1964] VOL.
erred in thinking that the direction in the Sastry
Award absolutely prohibited the Bank from transfe-
. rring workmen not belonging to the subordinate staff
outside the State or the language area in which the
employee had been serving except with his consent.
On a proper construction, it was urged, the direction
only required the bank to refrain Crom making such
transfers as far as possible and did not prevent the
bank from making such transfers where it was really
found necessary in bank's interests. The second contention was that when the bank claimed to have
made the transfer in the interests of its business and
was found to have acted bona fide, it should have
been held that the direction in the Sastry Award had
not been contravened.
In our opinion, there is considerable force in
both these contentions. It will be noticed that in
making the directions as regards the transfer of workmen the Sastry Award drew a distinction between
workmen belonging to the subordinate staff and
others.
As regards members of the subordinate staff
the direction was to the effect that there should be
no transfers ordinarily and there was absolute prohibition against transfers beyond the language area of the
persons concerned. The words used for the purpose are
......... "if there are any transfers at all, they should
not be beyond the language area of the person so transferred." As regards these workmen the award did not
say that "as far as possible transfer should not be beyond the language area of the person so transferred.'.'
It is easy to see that here the prohibition was absolute.
When they go on to consider the case of workmen
not belonging to the subordinate staff, the member of
the Tribunal however use markedly different language
and preface the direction with the words
"there
should be no transfer outside the State or the language area in which he is serving except of course, with .
his consent" by the words "as far as possible". It is
not possible to consider this direction as amounting
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
213
to absolute prohibition
without
ignoring the
words "as far as possible.
It is clear that these words
were deliberately used to leave it to the banks to decide on a consideration of the necessities of its busi•
ness interests whether a transfer of a workman not
belonging to the subordinate staff outside the State
or the language area in which he had been serving
could be avoided or not, and directing that where
possible it should be avoided. We are satisfied the
Labour Court was in error in holding that transfers
outside the State or the language area can be made
only with 'the consent of the employees. What that
clause means is that with conient such, transfers can
of course be made, otherwise they should be avoided
as far as possible.
This brings us to the question whether in the
present case the appellant contravened the direction
in the award in transferring the respondent outside
the Maharashtra State in which he was serving and
also outside the language area in which he had been
serving. It is necessary to remember in this connection that a bank which has branches in different
parts of the country has to distribute its total manpower between these different branches in accordance
with the needs of these branches and with an eye to
its business interests. To attain the best results it
becomes necessary to transfer workmen from one
branch to another. The best interests of the bank
may require at times that the transfer should be
made outside the State or the language area in which
a particular workman had formerly been employed.
We have found above that the right of the bank to
distribute its workmen not belonging to the subordinate staff to the best advantage, even though this
may involve transfers ontside the State or the language area in which a particular workman had been
serving, was left unimpaired by the Sastry Award,
except that such transfers have to be avoided, if they
can be avoided without sacrificing the interests of the
Caraara Badittl
CorpMation Lttl.
Y,
U. Vill•I
/Jiu G•/11• J,
196J
C"nata Banking
C'1T'/Joration Ltd.
Y.
U. Vittal
Du Gupt• J.
274
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964) VOL.
bank. The management of the bank is in the best
position to judge how to distribute its man· power
and whether a particular transfer can be avoided or
not. It is not . possible for industrial tribunals to
have before them all the materials which are relevant
for this purpose and even if these could be made
available the tribunals are by no means suited for
making decisions in matters of this nature. That
is why it would ordinarily be proper for industrial
adjudication to accept as correct any submission by
the management of the bank that an impugned
transfer has been made only because it was found
unavoidable. The one exeption to this statement is
where there is reason to believe that the management
of the bank resorted to the transfer mala fide, by
way of victimization, unfair labour practice or some
other ulterior motive, not connected with the business
interests of the bank.
In the present case the Labour Court has rejected the respondent's challenge to the bona fides of the
management. It has held that there is no evidence
whatever to support the complainant's allegation
that he was transferred because he joined the Union
and that the management had adopted a particular
policy towards the workmen of the Union. We can
find nothing that would justify us in interfering with
the Labour Court's finding that these allegations have
not been proved. It is true that the Labour Court
has in considering the question whether the conditions
of his service had been altered observed that the
transfer seems
to be very unfair" to the employee.
What it obviously means by this is t\lat this transfer
will work harshly on the employee. That may
indeed be true.
But that does not amount to a
finding of unfair labour practice. In these circumstances the Labour Court was not justified in thinking
that the respondent's transfer to Trichur could have
been avoided without any injury to the
bank's
interests.
3 S.C.R.
SU1'REME COURT REPORTS
275
We have therefore come to the conclusion that
the Labour Court has erred in holding that the transfer was not made in accordance with the "standing
orders" regarding transfers as contained in the Sastry
Award.
We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the
order of the Labour Court and order that the respondent's application under s.33A be rejected.
There
will be no order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.
----
M. SELVARAJ DANIEL
v.
MANAGEMENT OF STATE BANK OF INDIA
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO and
K. c. DAS GUPTA JJ.)
lndu•trial Di8pute-Sastry Award-From which date increment will b• given-In the ca•e of perBon after January, 1U50lndu•trial Dispufe8 Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), 1.33(c)(2).
The appellant was appointed as a clerk in the State Bank of
India on December 14, 1953. He made an application under
•.33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour
Court. He prayed before the Labour Court that he Wai enti•
tied to Rs. 146/- plus dearness allowance as the benefit to which
he was entitled under the Sastry Award but which had not
been paid. The case of the appellant was that he wa• entitled
under the Sastry Award to have his aunual increment in Decem·
her each year as he was appointed on December, 14, 1953.
The case of the Bank was that on the basis of the Sastry Award
the appellant was entitled to get his annual increment in each
year on April I. The. respondent raised a prelimhlary objection that the question in regard to the increment of the appc·
Hant could not be decided in an application under 1.33(c)(%)
IJ6J
c •• ,. 8.W,,6
C..P.,ation lit.
y,
CJ. Vilt•I
-
"" ,..,. I.
JM
.4Fll 21.