A dispute was raised by the Casual and Contract Workers’ Labour Union against the contractor concerning the retrenchment of 13 workmen. These workmen had been deployed by the contractor across various branches of the principal employer’s establishments. The retrenchment was carried out following a directive from the principal employer to reduce manpower. The matter was taken up for determination by the Office of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), with joint discussions being facilitated by the Assistant Labour Commissioner in an effort to reach an amicable settlement.
The representative of the contractor denied the allegation of retrenchment, stating that the workers had been transferred, not retrenched. However, the Union contended that the contractor, by issuing transfer orders, had effectively retrenched the workers indirectly. The Union requested that the workers be reinstated at their original place of work.
The contractor responded that if the workers accepted the transfers, they would be paid according to the applicable local wage rates. Furthermore, the contractor stated that there were currently no vacancies at the previous location to accommodate all 13 workers. It was also asserted that transfer is an inherent condition of employment, which the workers are not entitled to refuse.
After hearing both parties, the Conciliation Officer requested the contractor to reconsider the matter and, if feasible, retain the workers at their original location. The Principal Employer was also asked to reconsider the decision to reduce the workforce. After several joint discussions held on various dates, and upon consideration of the arguments and supporting evidence submitted by the employer’s representative, the Union ultimately withdrew its original demand. Instead, the Union requested that the contractor to accommodate 4 to 5 of the affected workers by reshuffling them, applying a “last come last out” approach in relation to the “first come first in ” entries.
Subsequently, the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) requested the employer to submit a proposal for such a reshuffling, in line with the revised request made by the Union.
Accordingly, the contractor submitted a proposal to reshuffle four workers with four others based on the “last come last entry” principle. All parties mutually agreed to this arrangement. It was further agreed that the remaining workers would be considered for reinstatement as and when vacancies arise. Subsequently, three of the displaced workers raised a fresh dispute regarding their transfers. Despite multiple conciliation meetings, the proceedings ended in failure.
The Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report to the Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India. In response, the Ministry stated that it did not find the dispute fit for adjudication, observing that the transfers were made based on the date of joining and in line with the contractor’s general transfer policy. The Ministry further noted that posting and transfer decisions fall under the administrative prerogative of the management and cannot be enforced upon the principal employer or contractor.
