LAWS(KAR)-2007-12-9

BPL LTD Vs. WORKMAN OF BPL LTD

Decided On December 14, 2007
BPL LIMITED Appellant
V/S
WORKMEN OF BPL LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the award dated 4/1/2007 in Ref. No. 39/2006 passed by the Labour court at Bangalore directing reinstatement of 15 workmen of the respondent-Union with continuity of service, consequential benefits and 50% backwages.

(2.) PETITIONER is a unit of BPL limited. The petitioner's unit was engaged in manufacture of plastic injection mould and plastic components. There were 66 employees working in the petitioner's unit. On 23/1/2001 the petitioner introduced voluntary retirement scheme. Out of 66 employees 12 staff and 22 operators have accepted the voluntary retirement scheme. Further 6 executives and 11 staff have resigned from the job. 15 workmen of the respondent union did not accept the voluntary retirement scheme. Thereafter the petitioner terminated the service of 15 workmen by issuing notice on 2-4-2001 on the ground that they have transferred the undertaking of the manufacturing unit to one M/s. Bangalore plastics Pvt. Ltd. and paid 15 days wages for every completed year of service together with all other payments as per law. Respondent wrote a protest letter dated 10-4-2001 protesting the action of petitioner-management and refused to accept the termination order and requested to continue their services with all consequential benefits. But the petitioner refused to continue the services of the workmen. The respondent workmen being aggrieved by this illegal termination raised a dispute before the labour Court by way reference under section 10 (1-C) of ID Act (for short the 'act' ).

(3.) BEFORE the Labour Court petitioner examined one witness as MW 1 and produced ex. Ml to M17. The respondents examined two witnesses as WW 1 and WW 2 and produced ex. W 1 to W 25. The Labour Court after hearing both the parties and on appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence on record concludes that the termination of the workmen by the petitioner as illegal and directed reinstatement with continuity of service, consequential benefits and 50% backwages. Hence this writ petition by the management.