Heard Mr. GN Sahewalla and Mr. DP Chaliha respectively, counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 2. The petitioner Kakodonga Tea Estate (Pvt) Ltd a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. having its registered office at Sibsagar has approached this Court with the prayer that the Award dated 29.11.91 made by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court. Dibrugarh in Reference Case No. 14/88 published in the Gazette on 22.5.92 be quashed for the same is illegal having been made by the Tribunal without reference to the true nature of the controversy and the circumstances pertaining to the transfer order of the respondent Shri SN Dolbaruah, hereinafter referred to as 'the workman'. 3. Impugned Award made by the Labour Court was made on a reference by the Govt. of Assam to the following effect: 1 .(a) Whether the Management of Kakodonga Tea Estate. PO Gotonga, are justified in refusing to employ Shri SN Dolbaruah, Head Clerk with effect from 1st June, 1987. for his alleged refuse to carry out the transfer order to Sibsagar head office of the company ? (b) Whether the Personnel Executive, Kakodonga TE (P) Ltd. is legally empowered to issue orders of transfer of Shri Dolbaruah and whether the aggireved workman was liable to carry out such orders of transfer? (c) Whether in view of the issues at 1 (a) and (b) above Shri Dolbaruah is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages to his substantive post of Head Clerk in Kakodonga Tea Estate ? And If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled? 4. In brief, the facts of the case are that the workman was appointed as Head Clerk and at the relevant time he was working in the tea garden of the petitioner company, hereinafter referred to as 'the company'. By order dated 12.5.87. Annexure I to the petition, which was passed by the Personnel Executive of the company, the workman was transferred from the tea garden to work as Head Clerk of the company in its central office. The order reads as follows : “In view of your experience and to utilize your services more gainfully you are transferred to the Central Office of the company wef 1st June, 1987. The order reads as follows : “In view of your experience and to utilize your services more gainfully you are transferred to the Central Office of the company wef 1st June, 1987. You will be promoted to the Special Clerical Grade I cadre from the date of assuming duties at this office, your accommodation will be provided and the scale of pay with one increment will be as under : Basic DA 40% VDA16% Total Rs.874/- Rs.350/- Rs. 140/- Rs. 1364/-” 5. A perusal of the transfer order would show that the workman was transferred to the central office of the company for the better utilization of his talents and experience. The workman, it appears, handed over the charge in the tea garden but did not join his duties at the central office and remained absent for pretty long time. The workman thereafter demanded for his posting in the tea garden, but the request was turned down whereupon the matter was agitated in the Labour Department of the Govt.. On failure of conciliatory efforts to sort out the dispute between the company and the workman, the State Govt. referred the dispute between them for adjudication to the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court, the contention on behalf of the company was that the workman being an employee of the company (tea estate) can be required to work either in the tea garden of the company or in its central office and that the workman had no vested right to work in the tea garden at his own choice. On the contrary, workman's contention before the Labour Court was that since his appointment had been made only to work in the tea garden and his employer being the Manager of the garden, he could not be transferred except by the order of the Manager of the garden to work at any other place outside the garden. 6. On the contrary, workman's contention before the Labour Court was that since his appointment had been made only to work in the tea garden and his employer being the Manager of the garden, he could not be transferred except by the order of the Manager of the garden to work at any other place outside the garden. 6. The Labour Court placing reliance on the oral testimony of the Manager of the tea garden to the effect that it was the Manager who could alone pass or make orders of transfer and the Personnel Executive was not empowered to issue such orders of transfer under the Standing Orders, the Labour Court held that the transfer order passed by the Personnel Executive of the company was illegal, hence the workman was under no legal duty to carry out the said order of transfer, therefore he was entitled for being employed and allowed to work in the tea garden itself. The claim of the workman was accordingly allowed by the Labour Court, hence this application under Article 226 of the Constitution by the company. 7. Mr. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken exception to the conclusion drawn by the Labour Court on the basis of the statement of the Manager of the tea garden out of context. According to him. the Manager of the tea garden has power confined within the garden and not beyond it. The Manager, therefore, according to Mr. Sahewalla is not the proper authority for passing order of transfer of any employee from the garden to the central office. Garden being owned and controlled by the company from its central office and the Personnel Executive being the controlling authority of all the employees of the company working either in the garden or in the central office, including the Manager, has power to transfer the employees outside the tea garden. Learned counsel further submitted that this aspect of the case was totally omitted by the Labour Court from its consideration which has resulted in a wholly unjustified order of Award which has been founded on the statement of the Manager which at the most may be true for transfer of employees within the garden. 8. Mr. Chaliha. Learned counsel further submitted that this aspect of the case was totally omitted by the Labour Court from its consideration which has resulted in a wholly unjustified order of Award which has been founded on the statement of the Manager which at the most may be true for transfer of employees within the garden. 8. Mr. Chaliha. learned counsel appearing for the workman contended that since the workman works under the supervision and administrative control of the Manager of the garden it is the Manager and not any other authority, who can transfer the workman or pass any order affecting his service conditions. It was further contended that since by virtue of the transfer order workman was to join in the central office, his nature of work and conditions of service would be entirely changed Therefore the workman is fully entitled to resist his transfer order and insist for working on the post to which he was appointed. According to him, since the Standing Orders of the company do not permit or provide for transfer of employees from the garden to another place, the transfer order is wholly illegal especially, when it is passed by the Personnel Executive and not by the Manager of the garden. It was further contended by Mr. Chaliha that the emoluments offered to the workman by the transfer order (Annexure I to the petition) are lesser than the emoluments which the workman was receiving before the order of transfer was passed. Hence, the transfer order contends Shri Chaliha resulted in the reduction of remuneration of the workman and on this ground also, the transfer order is liable to be set aside, the Labour Court therefore was justified in setting aside the transfer order and reinstating the workman in the garden. 9. Having considered the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. I do not feel inclined to agree with the contention of Mr. Chaliha and the Award made by the Labour Court. I find sufficient force in the arguments of Mr. Sahewalla, hence in my opinion the writ petition must be allowed. 10. The Standing Orders of the company govern the conditions of service of an employee apart from the conditions of service which are applicable to him as per the appointment order by which he is appointed. I find sufficient force in the arguments of Mr. Sahewalla, hence in my opinion the writ petition must be allowed. 10. The Standing Orders of the company govern the conditions of service of an employee apart from the conditions of service which are applicable to him as per the appointment order by which he is appointed. There is nothing on record to show that the workman in tins case was appointed to work only in the garden and no where else. The Labour Court has not referred to any material in this connection. Neither in the present writ petition there is anything indicating that the appointment of the workman was made only for working in the garden and not at any other place of work of the employer-company. In my opinion, officers and the workmen who are employed by the company have to perform the work which is assigned to them either at the sites of the works or in the head quarters of the company. If an employer transfers its employee from one place of work to another place of its work that does not by itself result in the change of service conditions of the workman unless the contrary is established by evidence. Nothing has been placed on record by the workman to establish that as a result of his transfer from the garden to the central office of the company his service conditions stood changed to his detriment. It has also not been proved from the record on behalf of the workman that his appointment was made only for working in the garden and not elsewhere with the company which owns the garden. In the absence of specific facts which must be established by evidence it is very difficult to uphold the claim of the workman that he cannot be asked to work outside the garden. Normal presumption in appointments is that the employee is appointed for any job has to work whereever his employer requires his services, it is open for the employer to assign to the workman employed by it the appropriate job which is suitable for his status at any place of work whereever employer's works are spread over. 11. The Labour Court has tried to make out a ground in favour of the workman by taking assistance from the statement of the Manager of the garden out of context. 11. The Labour Court has tried to make out a ground in favour of the workman by taking assistance from the statement of the Manager of the garden out of context. Manager's writ is confined in the garden which is in his management, it cannot run beyond the garden and it will be the employer (company) or its Personnel Executive who will be the competent authority to make an order for the shifting of the employees concerned from the garden whose service are required by it for utilization elsewhere. Simply because Standing Orders do not contain provision for the transfer of workmen from one place to another place of work of the company that by itself does not take away the vested right of the employer-company to transfer its workmen from one place of its work to another place of work wherever the work of the company is carried out. It is also not the case of the workman that by virtue of the transfer order nature of work which was being done by him has been changed. The workman performing clerical job in the garden which has also been assigned to him at the place of his transfer where also he has to perform the same type of job. 12. Much emphasis was attached by Shri Chaliha, the learned counsel for the workman on the absence of requisite enabling provision in the Standing Orders of the company in the matter of transfer of workmen from the tea garden to central office of the company so as to emphasise that in absence of an enabling provision in that regard the company has no authority to transfer its workmen from tea garden to the central office. 13. I have already dealt with this argument in earlier part. It would be sufficient to conclude on the subject that Standing Orders framed under the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act. 1946 do not exhaustively enumerate the service conditions of employees governed by that Act. Terms and conditions provided in the Standing Orders, no doubt have overriding effect on the corresponding terms and conditions of the employment of the workman by the employer but subjects which are not traversed by the Standing Orders in that field the service conditions laid down, either in the order of appointment or in the contract of service entered between the workman and the employer prevails. In this respect reference may be had to UP Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd, Etawah vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1978 Lab 1C 1137. In this background the contention of Mr. Chaliha is turned down. 14. Mr. Chaliha further emphasised the workman's employer in the tea garden is the Manager of the tea garden and not the owner of the garden, i .e. the company. 15. This argument of the learned counsel for the workman is totally misconceived. Word 'employer' has been defined in section 2 (g) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, as well as in section 2 (d) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The definitions provided to the word in the two enactments respectively are as follows : “2 (g) 'Employer' means (i) in relation to an industry carried on by or under the authority of any department of (the Central Govt. or a .(State) Govt.); the authority prescribed in this behalf, or where no authority is prescribed, the head of the department; (ii) in relation to an industry carried on by or on behalf of a local authority, the Chief Executive Officer of that authority.” “2 (d) 'employer' means the owner of an industrial establishment to which this Act for the time being applies, and includes (i) in a factory, any person named under (clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Factories Act, 1948) as Manager of the factory; (ii) in any industrial establishment under the control of any department of any Govt. in India, the authority appointed by such Govt. in this behalf or where no authority is so appointed, the head of the department; (iii) in any other industrial establishment, any person responsible to the owner for the supervision and control of the industrial establishment;” 16. A reading of section 2 (g) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would show that the word has been defined only in relation to industrial establishments run by departments either of Central or State Govt. and by local authorities. In relation to industrial establishments run by private companies or public limited companies or for that matter by private individuals the word 'employer' would be understood in its normal connotation. Meaning of the word 'employer' in the literal sense as given in English dictionaries will determine its true character. 17. and by local authorities. In relation to industrial establishments run by private companies or public limited companies or for that matter by private individuals the word 'employer' would be understood in its normal connotation. Meaning of the word 'employer' in the literal sense as given in English dictionaries will determine its true character. 17. In Chamber's Twentieth Century Dictionary the word has been defined as follows : “act of employing; that which engages or occupies” Similarly, in Oxford English Dictionary the definition of the word is as follows : “person who employs others” 18. Thus the word employer is meant by the person who employs the employee concerned. In the case of employee of tea garden it is the company owning the garden which will be the employer of the employees working in the garden including the Manager of the garden. The Manager, by no stretch of imagination, can be called the employer of the workmen working in the tea garden. The position in Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act. 1946, has however been made clearer in regard to the definition of the word employer as against the definition given in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The term 'employer' is akin to the word owner of the industrial establishment where the workmen or employees are employed or working. It will make no difference as to who issued or passed appointment order for engaging or employing the workman/employee, the relevant factor in this regard will be as to for whose work the workman/employee has been employed. 19. Both Manager, including other supervisor}7 and managerial employees in the tea garden and the workmen employed therein are employed by and for the work of the company which owns the tea garden. Hence, to say that the Manager and not the Personnel Executive of the company can pass transfer order for shifting a workman from one place of work of the company (owner) to another place of its work, will be wholly incorrect. 20. In view of the above discussion this argument of Mr. Chaliha is also turned down. 21. Regarding the second submission of Mr. Chaliha that the transfer order has resulted in the change of the service conditions of the workman inasmuch as he has now been required to work in the central office than in the garden. 20. In view of the above discussion this argument of Mr. Chaliha is also turned down. 21. Regarding the second submission of Mr. Chaliha that the transfer order has resulted in the change of the service conditions of the workman inasmuch as he has now been required to work in the central office than in the garden. Simply because the workman has been required to work at another place of work of the company than the place where he was working before the transfer order was passed, the same does not result in the change of his service conditions. Change in service conditions occurs where reductioin in salary or introduction of some prejudicial conditions in the discharge of duties results from the transfer order. No material whatsoever had however been pointed out either before the Labour Court nor it has been shown in the present writ petition on behalf of the workman in this regard. The argument of change of service conditions therefore does not hold any water. As has already been observed hereinabove, it is the prerogative of the employer to require its workman to work at any place of work wherever situation demands. The workman having been transferred to discharge clerical job at the central office of the company cannot complain that his service conditions have been changed only because of his transfer from the garden to the central office of the same company. 22. Regarding the last submission of the learned counsel for the workman, I again find no material in the writ petition to substantiate it. The pay scale which was being received by the workman while he was working in the tea garden has not been indicated in the counter affidavit and in the WS filed in the Labour Court whereas the pay scale which will be received by the workman as result of transfer order in the central office of the company has already been indicated in the transfer order itself. No grievance in this respect was also made by the workman before the Labour Court. Hence, in the absence of necessary material in this regard, the contention must be rejected for not having been substantiated. 23. No grievance in this respect was also made by the workman before the Labour Court. Hence, in the absence of necessary material in this regard, the contention must be rejected for not having been substantiated. 23. I, therefore, find that the Labour Court has committed grave illegality in making the Award and in arriving at the conclusion/finding that the order passed by the Personnel Executive of the petitioner-company for transferring the workman (claimant) was illegal for being beyond his power. In my opinion, the order of transfer was not an illegal order which therefore was liable to be complied by the workman. Labour Court's order directing the employer for the reinstatement of the workman in the garden with full back wages is therefore illegal. The impugned Award of the Labour Court is accordingly set aside. 24. In the result, the writ petition succeeds which is accordingly allowed. However, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.