The same points that were formulated by the High Court were .
5 formulated by it, the High Court observed that it was.
The High Court formulated the points which arose out of the arguments addressed before it thus Whether the dispute referred by the State Government to the Labour Court is an industrial dispute ?
4629/27 towards the overtime wages and as well as the increments due.
It was also companytended that the dispute was an individual dispute.
c of sub s. 1 of s. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 XIV of 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act referred for adjudication by the Labour Court, Bangalore, the following points in dispute Whether the order of the management of Sri Rangavilas Motor Private Ltd., in transferring the workman Sri It.
Selvaraj, inter alia, prayed in his statement of claims, filed on behalf of Mahalingam, as follows it is prayed that the Honble Court may be pleased to direct the second party the Company to cause the payment of overtime wages due, increments due as mentioned in the annexure to this statement as also the arrears of wages from 1 2 60 to 15 3 1960 and order payment of back wages with effect from the date of termination of service by setting aside the said order of termination and to reinstate the workman with companytinuity of service.
On April 8, 1960, Mahalingam companyplained in writing to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour who was functioning as the Conciliation Officer at Bangalore.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 27, 1963 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No.
One further objection was raised to the effect that the reference should have been made to the National Tribunal and number to the Labour Court The Labour Court overruled all the objections regarding jurisdiction raised by the Company and made the award holding that both the transfer as well as the removal from service of Mahalingam were illegal and that he Was entitled to overtime wages as well as increments.
The Company, in reply, companytended that the reference was limited only to the question of transfer, and hence numberquestion of reinstatement or back wages companyld be adjudicated upon.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No.
1096 of 1961 by which the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the impugned award dated June 30, 1961, made by the Labour Court, Bangalore, in Reference No.
Ultimately, the Company framed charges against Mahalingam and removed him from service by an order dated April 7, 1960.
As stated above, the Company filed writ petition challenging the award.
Mahalingam entered into companyrespondence with the Company alleging that according to the companyditions of his employment he companyld number be transferred from Bangalore to Krishnagiri.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In order to appreciate the points raised before us it is necessary to give the relevant facts.
Later on, one Selvaraj took part in the companyciliation proceedings on the authority of the resolution dated July 21, 1960, passed at the General Body meeting of Krishnagiri Motor Workers Union, among whose members 112 out of 170 were employees of the Company.
P. Malhotra, P. C. Bhathari and O. C. Mathur, for respondent No.
1065 of 1965.
1096 of 1961.
51 of 1960.
K. Ramamurthi, for the appellants.
The second appellant before us, R. Mahalingam, was engaged as a Foreman in the workshop of Sri Rangavilas Motors P Ltd., the first respondent, hereinafter referred to as the Company, in the month of April, 1956.
By an order dated January 21, 1960, Mahalingam was transferred from Bangalore to Krishnagiri where the head office of the Company is situated.
Selvaraj filed a statement of claims before the Conciliation Officer on September 1, 1960.
The Conciliation Officer reported to the Government that the companyciliation proceedings had failed, and thereupon the State Government by its order dated November 1, 1960, made in exercise of the powers companyferred by cl.
Regarding point No.
It also held that the dispute regarding transfer was included in the expression rules of discipline enumerated as item 8 of the Third Schedule, and was therefore pot within the, companypetence of the Labour Court to adjudicate upon in view of these findings the Award was quashed.
