The third appeal before the Division Bench was Contempt Appeal No.13 of 1992 directed against order dated 11.12.1992 in Contempt Application No.336 of 1992 passed by learned Single Judge.
On 17.6.1983 the respondent workmen through their Association wrote a letter to the Labour Officer that they may be taken back as on the date of transfer of the partnership by Beardsell.
Writ Appeal No.760 of 1997 was filed by the respondent workmen.
Writ Appeal No.761 of 1992 was filed by the appellant which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment.
Factual background as highlighted by the appellant Management of Mattur Beardsell Ltd. is as follows Mettur Beardsell Ltd. started business in 1936 and companyducted operations successfully till 1970, when it faced financial problems.
On 22.6.1983 several unions entered into settlement under Section 12 3 of the Act agreeing to companytinue as employees of Textile and number of Beardsell.
On 13.5.1983 letters were written by the respondent Employees Association to Beardsell admitting the transfer to Mettur Textile and requested for an option for retention retransfer to the rolls of Beardsell.
Respondent workman filed writ petition No.1063 of 1988 against the said Award.
On 23.4.1984 employees replied that they may be companytinued in service of Mettur Textile Industries Ltd. On 14.11.1984 respondents raised I.D. 89 of 1984 challenging the retrenchment.
By order dated 11.12.1992 learned single judge hold that there was companytempt and sentenced the Managing Director of Beardsell to two weeks imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/ .
By order of this Court dated 16.11.2004 the direction of the Labour Court for payment was stayed.
On 3.3.1983 an agreement was entered into amongst Beardsell, Textile and one Rukmini Investments Pvt.
A Writ Petition No.11956 of 1987 was filed by the respondents workmen against the Award in I.D. No.8 of 1984.
It appears that a claim petition under Section 33 C 2 of the Act for the period 1984 to 1992 was filed which was numbered as C.P. No.2242 of 1991.
Contempt Appeal No.13 of 1992 was filed against the order of learned single judge and the companytempt matter was stayed.
In the meantime the Contempt Petition No.366 of 1992 was filed by respondent workmen alleging that the direction by the learned Single Judge on 22.7.1991 to the effect that the workers should be treated as employees with all companysequential benefits had number been companyplied with.
By an Award dated 5.12.1986 Industrial Tribunal rejected the claims of the workmen.
D. Case No.8 of 1984 was registered on the basis of grievance by the respondent workmen asserting that they companytinued to be workmen of Beardsell.
On 12.4.1984 a letter was sent by Mettur Textile Industries Ltd. intimating each workman that he was being retrenched.
On 6.4.1984 Mettur Beardsell Employees Association wrote to Labour officer companytending that they were employees of and paid by Mettur Textile Industries limited from July, 1983.
By judgment dated 22.7.1991, the Writ Petition was allowed holding that the workmen should be treated as employees of Beardsell with all companysequential benefits.
By order dated 24.2.1997 learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
However, by the impugned judgment the Contempt Appeal was dismissed.
Writ Appeal No.761 of 1992 was against order dated 22.7.91 passed in Writ Petition No.11956 of 1987 passed by a learned Single Judge, while Writ Appeal No.760 of 1997 was against the order dated 24.2.1997 in Writ Petition No.1063 of 1988 passed by a learned Single Judge.
On 16.7.1983 Beardsell wrote a letter to the Labour Officer informing him that all the employees working in the Integrated Textile and Thread Division had become employees of Textile and indicated that the said employees have left its service on 31.12.1982.
22724 of 2004 and 5071 of 2005.
The Labour Court directed payment of Rs.44.5 lacks.
On 24.3.1983 numberices were sent to the workmen informing them that Beardsell had retired from partnership and that the terms and companyditions of work would number be any way less favourable than the prevailing situation.
Ltd. For the sake of companyvenience they are described as Beardsell and Textile hereinafter.
On 31.1.1983 employees were informed that their services would be absorbed by Textile and that terms and companyditions which would be uninterrupted would companyer salary, wages, benefits, retrenchment and retirement.
2258 OF 2006 Arising out of SLP C NO.
2259 OF 2006 Arising out of SLP C NO.
5071 OF 2005 And CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Ltd. in short Rukmini .
22724 OF 2004 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.
On 22.9.1982 numberice to workers was given that E.D.P. Department will also be treated as a part of the Integrated Textile Division.
Beardsell was paid Rs.1,74,00,000/ by Rukmini Investments for divesting all rights and assets in the Integrated Textile Division.
With CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
7152 OF 2003 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted in SLP C Nos.
By the impugned judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court three appeals were disposed of.
The E.D.P. Department was to companytinue to operate from 49, Rajaji Road where the Integrated Division was situated.
These appeals have a companymon matrix.
On 30.11.1982 circular was sent to the employees that employees allocation has been companypleted, Beardsell was to become a partner of new formed subsidiary Textile to ensure that Textile Division companyld be treated separately.
On 9.2.1982 information about Integrated Textile Division companysisting of manufacturing and marketing divisions of the Textile Division in all locations including Madras with necessary support staff was given.
On 14.12.1982 a partnership firm called Mettur Textiles was formed between the Textile and Beardsell evidenced by a partnership deed.
The workers were informed about the transfer.
Ltd. was formed.
Later Rukmini took over entire partnership business and incorporated it as Mettur Textile Industries Ltd. On 25.1.1983 employees of the Integrated Division were informed individually about the arrangement and their absorption with effect from 01.01.1983 without change in the companyditions of service.
On 29.11.1982 individual letters numberices were sent to employees, who have been in the Textile Division, that they were being treated as part of the Integrated Textile Division with unaltered terms and companyditions of work.
Thereafter certain letters appear to have been written to the Provident Fund Commissioner.
On 21.6.1982 at the Annual General Meeting of Mettur Beardsell Ltd. shareholders authorized entering into of an arrangement on behalf of Mettur Beardsell Ltd. and Mettur Textile Pvt.
The workmen have objected to companysideration of these documents on the ground that they were number before the Labour Court or the High Court.
By the impugned judgment the High Court allowed the Writ Appeal.
The office of Beardsell was on 47 Bose Road which is different address.
By its award dated 19.6.1987 Industrial Tribunal rejected the claim.
