BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED Vs. R P SAWANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter has been heard at considerable length. The parties have settled. Mr. Jamshed p. Cama, learned senior counsel for the appellant states that the workmen involved in this appeal would be made permanent and may be transferred from Pune in Maharashtra or outside Maharashtra to the Branches of the company, Depots, the Suppliers or dealers of the Company. There would, however, be no change in conditions of service of the workmen involved. The Company would protect the emoluments and service conditions of the workmen subject to the condition that if hours of work and canteen facilities or the like are different in the transferred position/station, the transferred workmen would not decline the transfer on the ground of aforesaid conditions being different. Mr. K. K. Singhvi, learned senior counsel representing the workmen accepts the aforesaid statement made by Mr. I Cama. Further, learned counsel Mr. J. P. Cama i and Mr. Singhvi submit that Respondent No. 39 - Subhash N. Pawar and Respondent No. 49 - kishor R. Patil whose services were terminated and were relieved on June 4, 1997 would be made permanent w. e. f. the date of relieving i. e. June 4, 1997 but they would not be entitled to any back wages. For all other purposes they will also be covered by the aforesaid Order.

(2.) In respect of Respondent No. 28 - Nitin a. Kurlekar who resigned on April 8, 2001, respondent No. 122 - Manohar B. Swami who was dismissed w. e. f. March 25, 2001, respondent No. 284 - Hemant Kumar P. Ikale whose services were terminated from January 3, 1998, Respondent No. 391 - Rupesh M. Patil, who resigned on June 3, 2000 and respondent No. 376 - Uday Singh Y. Babar who was dismissed on June 16, 2003, it is agreed that the aforesaid protection of absorption would not be available and this order will not have the effect of recalling the resignation or termination, as the case may be. Their termination/resignation will stand. In respect of Respondent No. 181 - Ramdas N. Atole, who is said to have expired on May 4, 2003, it is agreed, that his legal representatives would get retiral benefits, if any, in accordance with the Rules of the Company applicable to the permanent employees.

(3.) As prayed by learned counsel, the appeal is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid statements of Mr. Cama and Mr. Singhvi. In view of the settlement the questions decided by the High Court are left open and will not be treated as precedent on law or on fact. Civil Appeal No. 5002/2002