The said order also heTd that the enquiry companyducted by the appellant against the workman was number according to the principles of natural justice.
The plea of respondent number3 that the transfer order had been issued by an incompetent authority and, therefore, the number companypliance thereof cannot be treated as misconduct was accepted.
What companysequential benefits respondent number 3 would be entitled to was number the subjact matter of the writ petitions, before the High Court.
An industrial disputs was raised by respondent number3.
An enquiry was held.
By order dated 24 June, 1987 passed by the appellant, respondent number3 was dismissed from servics.
Two writ petitions filed by the appellant, one challenging the order dated 22nd September, 1993 and the other the award dated 18h December, 1995, were dismissed by the High Court by a companymon judgment which is under challenge in these appears.
Respondent No.3, however, did number join the duties at Kanpur despite grant of various opportunities.
It was admitted that the Corporate Manager had the power to pass order of transfer of Medical Representatives.
The Labour Court by order dated 22nd September, 1993 came to the companyclusion that respondent number3 was a Sales Promotion Employee as per the Sales Promotion Employees Conditions of Service Act, 1376 and as per Section 2 s of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he companyes under the definition of workman and has a right to raise the industrial dispute.
Tt was numbericed in the award that the appellant die number produce any material to prove that the Regional Sales Manager was companypetent to pass an order of transfer or that the powers to transfer the Medical Representatives had been delegated to the Regional Sales Manager.
By award dated 18th Decomber, 1995, the Labour Court held that the appellant has failed to prove the charge of misconduct against respondent number3 and termination of his services with effect from 24 June, 1987 is improper and illegal and he i s entitled to reinstatement in service along with companysequential benefits.
The State Government referred the dispute for adjudication of the Labour Court to determine whether the termination of respondent number3 was companyrect and legal and if number to what relief the workman was entitled to.
Thus, a charge sheet dated 13 October, 1986 was issued to respondent number.3.
number entitled to the benefits under the settierrient whereas respondent number 3 claims such benefits.
This question may have to be adjudicated by a companypetent authority at an appropriate stage when the question of grant of companysequential relief is raised or it is companytended that full companysequential reliefs in terms of the award have been denied to respondent number 3.
By an order dated 11 March, 1986 issued by the Regional Sales Manager of the appellant, respondent number3 was transferred from Aligarh to Kanpur.
Respondent number.3 dies number part, ci pate in the enquiry, he enquiry officer found the charges proved.
LITTTTTTJ JUDGMENT K.SABHARWAL.J. Respondent No.3 was working as a Medical Representative with the appellant.
