Skip to content


Automotive Manufactures Ltd. Vs. Nanalal Panachand Vakharia and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1977)18GLR788
AppellantAutomotive Manufactures Ltd.
RespondentNanalal Panachand Vakharia and anr.
Excerpt:
- - one cannot ascribe to the respondent, a lowly paid employee, such a desire to subject himself to transfer to a branch outside the city in which he secured employment as, it would have disastrous consequences on his economic and family life 3. the labour court by a well considered judgment has decided the piv-otal issue against the petitioner......of rs. 175/- to submit to a transfer to a branch of the employer corporation in some other town or city. the labour court at rajkot negative the contention of the petitioner that there was an implied agreement between the parties that the employee concerned was transferable to any branch of the company in any city. this finding of fact on which the fate of this petition under article 227 of the constitution of india hinges is sought to be assailed by the petitioner company.2. now admittedly transferability out of the city was not an express condition of service. can it then be imposed on an employee by ascribing it to him under the doctrine of an implied term of service? it can be read into the contract as an implied term if there is some compulsion to read it into a contract of service.....
Judgment:

M.P. Thakkar, J.

1. The pivotal question is whether there was an implied condition in an oral contract of employment obliging the respondent workman who joined the services of the petitioner Company as Accounts Clerk in 1962 at a small monthly salary of Rs. 175/- to submit to a transfer to a branch of the employer Corporation in some other town or city. The Labour Court at Rajkot negative the contention of the petitioner that there was an implied agreement between the parties that the employee concerned was transferable to any branch of the Company in any city. This finding of fact on which the fate of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India hinges is sought to be assailed by the petitioner Company.

2. Now admittedly transferability out of the city was not an express condition of service. Can it then be imposed on an employee by ascribing it to him under the doctrine of an implied term of service? It can be read into the contract as an implied term if there is some compulsion to read it into a contract of service by necessary implication having regard to the very nature of the employment. Not otherwise. One must be able to say: what is obvious need not be explicitly stated and may be taken to have been understood by both the sides. To hold that it was an implied condition would be to attribute to the employee a deliberate desire to subject himself to transferability. He was occupying a house on Rs. 20/- per month in Rajkot presumably because of the Rent Act. In Ahmedabad he would not be able to secure a house for possibly less than Rs. 200/-. Rent-cost as percentage of his income might rise from 10% to 50%. Education of children would suffer for want of admissions at transferred place. Some members of his family might be employed in his hometown and they would have to remain back and maintain a separate household. His whole family would be disrupted. One cannot ascribe to the respondent, a lowly paid employee, such a desire to subject himself to transfer to a branch outside the city in which he secured employment as, it would have disastrous consequences on his economic and family life

3. The Labour Court by a well considered judgment has decided the piv-otal issue against the petitioner. Other points indicated in the petition were not even argued in the Labour Court. The petitioner cannot be permitted to raise these points (which even otherwise are devoid of substance) in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No error apparent on the face of the record is shown. The petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed.

4. We do not consider that the petition involves any substantial question of law of general importance which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. Certificate under Article 133(1) of the Constitution orally prayed for by the petitioner is, therefore, refused.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //