But the General Manager, by his letter dated January 22/24, 1955, insisted upon their joining the new mill at Bulandshabr.
III 45 of 1956, lip arising out of the award dated February 6, 1956 of the State Industrial Tribunal, Allahabad, in reference No.
The respondents 1 to 4 were employed by the owners of the appellant Mills at the Sugar Mills at Amroha at a time when they were number proprietors of the Sugar Mills at Bulandshahr.
The said respondents through their Union, respondent No.
The General Manager, E.W.1, in his evidence stated that the interim bonus of the Bulandshahr factory as ordered by the Government in November 1955 was Rs.
LI a .
If so, to what relief are the workmen entitled.
The management has preferred the present appeal against the said order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal.
On February 2, 1955, the General Manager made an order dismissing the respondents 1 to 4 from service on the ground that they had disobeyed his order of transfer and thus they were guilty of misconduct under Standing Order No.
They were asked to submit their explanation as to why action should number be taken against them under the Standing Order.
Appeal by special leave from the decision dated April 30,1956, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India at Lucknow in Appeeal No.
But the said respondents did number accede to his request.
The said respondents through their representative, the fifth respondent, protested to the General Manager against the said transfer.
The Labour Union, by its letter dated January 31, 1955, denied the charges.
On January 28, 1955, the General Manager served a numberice on the respondents 1 to 4 stating that they had disobeyed his orders and thereby companymitted misconduct under Standing Order No.
Ram Lal Anand, I.M. Lal and S. S. Sukla, for the appellants.
136 of 1958.
The Labour Union thereafter raised an industrial dispute and the Government of U.P. by its numberification dated November 7, 1955, referred the following issue for decision to the State Industrial Tribunal for U, P. at Allahabad Whether the employers have wrongfully and or unjustifiably terminated the services of Sarva Shri Zia Uddin, Raisuddin, Shafiquddin and Ahmed Bux for refusal to obey the orders of tranfer to M s. Pannijee Sugar and General Mills Co., Bulandshahr.
Kundan Sugar Mills is a partnership companycern and owns a sugar mill at Amroha.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
5, perferred an appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India and the said Appellate Tribunal held that the management had numberright to transfer the respondents 1 to 4 to the new factory and therefore the order dismissing them was illegal.
96 of 1955.
The respondents I to 4 were employed by the appellant as seasonal masons in the year 1946.
D. Sharma, for respondents Nos.
On January 19, 1955, the General Manager of the appellant Mills ordered the transfer of the respondents I to 4 from the appellant Mills to the new mill at Bulandshahr.
In 1951 the partners of the appellant Mills purchased the building machinery and other equipment of another sugar mill at Kiccha in the district of Nainital.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered dy SUBBA RAO, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India setting aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Allahabad, and directing the reinstatement of the workers in Kundan Sugar Mills at Amroha.
February 9.
The State Industrial Tribunal by its order dated February 6, 1956, made its award holding that the management was within its rights and that, as the respondents 1 to 4 had disobeyed the order of the management, they were properly dismissed by the management.
P. Lal and G. N. Dikshit, for respondent No.
1 to 5.
They closed the said mill at Kiccha and started it at Bulandshahr.
The new factory was named Pannijee Sugar General Mills, Bulandshahr.
In the words of the Appellate Tribunal, the only companynection between the two is in th identity of ownership and, but for it, one has numberhing to do with the other.
