S B PATOLE Vs. FUJITSU ICIM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed by 24 workmen who are employed with the respondent No.1-Company. However, out of these 24 workmen, most of the workmen have settled their disputes with the respondent No.1-Company. The Writ Petition is now prosecuted only by petitioner Nos.1, 3, 4 and 17 to 24. Aggrieved by the order dated 5th May, 1998 of the Industrial Court, Pune in dismissing the Complaint (ULP) No. 165 of 1997 filed by the petitioners, (hereinafter referred to as the workmen), under Section 28 read with Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, (for short "the MRTU & PULP Act"), the workmen filed the present Writ Petition.

(2.) The respondent No.1, (hereinafter referred to as "the Company"), manufactures computers, printers, fax machines etc. It is also engaged in software development and has several Divisions including the Manufacturing and Supply Division (MSD), National Software Division (NSD), Engineering Support Division (ESD) etc. According to the workmen, there were 1200 employees totally in all the Divisions which are part and parcel of the Company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956. In 1994, the Company floated a Voluntary Retirement Scheme, (for short "VRS"), for the MSD and not for the workers in any other Division. This was because certain activities of the MSD were transferred to Pondicherry. 125 employees accepted the VRS, while 117 employees continued to work with the Company in that Division in Pune. On 15th October, 1996, the Company issued a notice of suspension of operations on the ground that work orders were not available with the Company. In 1997, a second VRS was offered by the Company to the employees working in the MSD. 82 employees accepted this scheme, while 24 employees continued in employment.

(3.) Complaint (ULP) No.165 of 1997 was filed by five workmen for themselves and 20 other workmen, who had authorized them to file the said complaint under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The workmen contended that they apprehended a closure of the Company and, therefore, filed the said complaint. It was pleaded that the MSD and other Divisions were an integral part of the Company and that they had functional integrality with the Company. The workers pleaded that most of the divisions/companies mentioned in the complaint were being run from the factory premises. It was contended that the closure was likely to be effected without following the provisions of law which would amount to an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. They sought an injunction against the Company restraining it from closing the MSD during the pendency of the Complaint (ULP) No.165 of 1997.