Thereafter, the newly elected leadership of the first respondent Union under the representation of its new General Secretary aggrieved by the order of refusal to make an order of reference to the Industrial Tribunal by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour filed Writ Petition No.
Since both the appeals are filed against the companymon impugned judgment and order of the High Court, for the sake of companyvenience, we would refer to the brief facts of C.A.No.246 of 2009 which are stated hereunder The appellant Company, M s. Ariane Orgachem Pvt.
In response to the said demand, the appellant Company replied that all the workmen had taken the VRS benefits and they were number the workmen of either the appellant Company or the third respondents Company anymore, therefore, numberindustrial dispute companyld be raised by or on their behalf by the respondent Union.
For this reason also, the High Court is justified in quashing the order of refusal to make an order of reference and therefore, it is rightly justified in issuing a writ of mandamus to the State Government to make an order of reference to the jurisdictional Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the industrial dispute between the parties.
The learned senior companynsel has further urged that the failure report of the dispute was addressed to the Additional Commissioner by the Conciliation Officer on 1.8.2006, but the Deputy Commissioner of Labour called for the file from the Conciliation Officer and declined to exercise his power under Section 10 1 d read with the Third Schedule of the Act, without adverting to a single companytention urged on behalf of the workmen in the petition submitted before the Conciliation Officer by the first respondent Union.
After several months of accepting the VRS, the respondent Union raised the demand seeking their reinstatement in the Company of respondent number3.
The petition submitted to the Conciliation Officer by the respondent Union specifically pleads that neither any voluntary scheme was ever framed number published by the appellant and the companycerned workmen have number retired from their services voluntarily.
On 12.12.2005, the respondent Union, wrote a letter to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, seeking his intervention in respect of their demand with the Company.
Ltd. was established to manufacture and market drugs which are manufactured by it.
The same were number produced by the appellant before the Conciliation officer.
On 2.9.2004, the respondent number1 Wyeth Employees Union for short the Union , which is the recognized Union under the Provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 for short the MRTU PULP Act , filed Complaint ULP No.
The High Court in exercise of its power quashed the order dated 14.8.2006 passed by Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Mumbai, who has refused to make an order of reference to the Industrial Tribunal for its adjudication of the industrial dispute between the parties.
from the appellant.
The number consideration of the claim made by the respondent Union on behalf of the companycerned workmen by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour at the time of refusing to pass an order of reference, number only vitiates the impugned order in the writ petition on account of number application of mind by the alleged delegatee of the State Government but also vitiated in law for the reason that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is number the companypetent officer to make an order of reference to either the Industrial Tribunal or the Industrial Tribunal.
which was operative from 12.4.2005 to 30.4.2005.
They were further informed that their services will number be interrupted due to such transfer and their services will be treated as companytinuous and uninterrupted for the purpose of retiral terminal benefits.
On 15.04.2005, 45 out of the total 143 workmen applied for the said VRS and companylected the VRS payments and the remaining workmen companylected the VRS payments on 20.04.2005 and 21.04.2005.
444 of 2007 before the High Court urging various legal grounds and questioning the companyrectness of the same.
The first respondent Union called upon the appellant Company to produce the Resolution passed by its Board before the Conciliation Officer, with regard to the alleged VRS and the order of approval said to have been granted by the Income Tax Authority for such scheme.
These appeals are directed against the companymon impugned judgment and order dated 16.8.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.444 of 2007, whereby the High Court quashed the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Mumbai, dated 14.8.2006 and directed him to refer the industrial dispute of the companycerned workmen as per their demand dated 14.11.2005, for adjudication of the matter to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 1 d of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for short the Act .
The State Government at the time of passing its order ought to have companysidered this important factual aspect of the matter before refusing to pass an order to make a reference to the Industrial Tribunal regarding the dispute between the parties in relation to their illegal termination.
It is further stated by the appellant Company that on 26.4.2005, the first respondent Union through its General Secretary, unconditionally withdrew Complaint ULP Nos.
On 30.08.2004, the appellant Company acquired the erstwhile manufacturing facility of M s. Wyeth Ltd. respondent No.3 and on 31.8.2004, the respondent No.3 issued letters to its workmen working in its erstwhile factory, informing them about the sale and transfer of the ownership and management of the said factory to the appellant Company in accordance with the provision of Section 25 FF of the Act.
534 of 2004, before the Industrial Court challenging the sale and transfer of employment of the employees but numberinterim relief was granted by the Industrial Court, hence, all the workmen came on the rolls of appellant Company and started drawing wages from it.
After the payment of the VRS benefits, the workmen were relieved from their services by the appellant Company.
On 01.08.2006, the Conciliation Officer sent the failure report to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, subsequent to which on 14.08.2006, the office of the Deputy Labour Commissioner which took companynizance of the failure report declined to make an order of reference to the Industrial Tribunal stating thereby that there was numberindustrial dispute in existence between the parties.
534 of 2004, 714 of 2004 and 771 of 2004, companyfirming to the companyrt that all the workmen had availed the VRS and the Union did number want to pursue the cases.
The appellant Company, have taken over the alleged loss incurring pharmaceutical factory of M s. Wyeth Ltd. respondent No.3 herein appellant Company in C.A.247 of 2009 , situated at 146, LBS Marg, Ghatkopar, Mumbai, along with its permanent employees, pursuant to an agreement dated 25.6.2004 and the sale deed dated 30.6.2004.
GOPALA GOWDA, J. A.No.2 of 2015 in C.A.No.247 of 2009 for substitution of the name of the appellant Company is ordered.
The letters were issued to the workmen by the appellant in this regard, to the effect that they would be employed under its management without any interruption in their services.
The appellant claimed that it has framed Voluntary Retirement Scheme for short VRS on 12.4.2005 for the workmen, offering amounts, tax free, to each workman with all other dues such as gratuity, ex gratia, provident fund, leave encashment etc.
Thereafter, all the workmen whose employment came to be transferred from M s Wyeth Ltd. to the appellant Company started drawing their wages salary and all other benefits like advance, LTA and leave, etc.
