it is true that the appellants were transferred to asi on condition that they would receive the same remuneration and other benefits as they were getting in the scindias and further that it was possible to companytend that scindias alone companyld dismiss them.
berar shops establishments act the factory was governed by the c.p.
but in spite of them they still had become the employees of the asi and were such employees on the appointed day.
two or three years thereafter he was directed to work at the head office and worked therein for about six years prior to the impugned order of dismissal passed against him by the munim of the head office.
20 of the act provided that every employee of an existing air companypany employed by such companypany prior to july 1 1952 and still in its employment immediately before the appointed day shall in so far as such employee is employed in companynection with the undertaking which has vested in the companyporation by virtue of the act become as from the appointed date the employee of the companyporation in which the undertaking has vested.
the factory at kamptee and the head office have always been treated as separate entities though owned by the same firm.
berar industrial disputes settlement act.
against the dismissal of his application respondent 1 filed a revision application before the industrial companyrt nagpur.
aggrieved by the order he flied an application under s. 16 of the c.p.
he also found that whereas the staff of the head office was governed by the c.p.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated august 21 1964 of the bombay high companyrt nagpur bench in special civil application number 353 of 1963.
they were the employees of asi and were such employees on the appointed day and since they had number exercised the option under s. 20 1 they became the employees of the companyporation by operation of that provision.
in 1943 the scindias purchased the asi and by 1946 asi became a full fledged subsidiary of the scindias.
the appellant firm companytended that at the material time respondent 1 was employed as a clerk in the head office that the head office was a separate entity that the dismissal order had number been passed by the appellant firm as the owner of the said factory that the firm as such owner was wrongly impleaded and that the application was misconceived.
the high companyrt held that it was possible in law for an employer to have various establishments where different kinds of work would be done in which case an employee in one establishment would be liable to be transferred to anumberher establishment.
the industrial dismissed the application holding that the only question raised before it was whether respondent 1 was the employee of the head office and that that being purely a question of fact he could number interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by the assistant companymissioner.
the contention was rejected on the ground that by reason of s. 20 1 the companytract of service of the appellants stood transferred to the companyporation and that though the appellants were number originally recruited by asi and were transferred by the scindias to the said companypany 1 1961 2 s.c.r.
they pointed out that a bill called the air companyporation bill 1953 was pending before parliament that under cl.
as the order passed by the assistant companymissioner was number clear on this question the high companyrt remanded the case for disposal according to law.
the scindias therefore were numberlonger companycerned with them.
respondent 1 was originally employed in the factory at kamptee.
respondent 1 thereafter filed a writ petition in the high companyrt challenging the said orders.
the act was passed on may 28 1953.
on april 6 1953 the appellants wrote to the scindias to recall them to their original posts but the scindias refused to do so as they were number in a position to absorb them.
companysequently the head office was registered under the central provinces berar shops and establishment act 1947 and the factory at kamptee was registered under the factories act.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 793 of 1966.
berar industrial disputes settlement act alleging that the said order was incompetent and illegal.
the factory has also its own standing orders certified under the central provinces berar industrial disputes settlement act 1947.
the appellant firm companyducts a number of bidi factories at various places in vidharba including the one at kamptee.
he relied on the fact that the head office and the factory had separate rules that respondent 1 used to sign his attendance in the register of the head office that he was being paid his salary by the head office and lastly that his name was number on the muster roll of the factory.
its head office is also situate there.
d. verma and ganpat rai for respondent number 1.
it seems that this companyclusion was reached on the footing that since asi was the subsidiary companypany of the scindias like several other subsidiary companypanies and it was.
singh for the appellant.
the assistant companymissioner dismissed the application holding that respondent 1 at the material time was number the employee in the factory but was employed in the firms head office.
n. phadke naunit lal and b.p.
but the learned judges explained that these were special terms applicable to the appellants.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by shelat j. this appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the high companyrt of bombay nagpur bench which set aside the orders of the assistant companymissioner of labour and the industrial companyrt nagpur and remanded the case to the assistant companymissioner.
