ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS Vs. CROMPTON GREAVES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order impugned by the petitioner is only an interim order passed by the Industrial Court in a complaint of unfair labour practice filed by the petitioner union against the respondents under section 28 of the M. R. T. P. and P. U. L. P. Act, 1971 read with Item 5 of Schedule II and 2, 3, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act. The petitioner union had filed an application for interim orders under section 10 (2) of the Act praying for a direction to the respondents not to shift, sell or give plaint and machinery and the division in any manner whatsoever and to relocate all the machines at their original places and that to start working of the departments viz. , machine shop, dye casting, winding shop, tool room, maintenance and steel department and further not to sell, lease out or part with the land, premises and structure M-I Division in whatsoever manner. The industrial Court heard both the parties and passed the impugned order. From the order of the Industrial Court it appears that even at the interim stage the petitioner union had made its submissions to quite a great length as if the main complaint of unfair labour practice was being heard. The respondents, of course, had to meet the case, may be with equal length.

(2.) THE petitioner union has given challenge to the said interim order of the Industrial Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The complaint is still pending before the Industrial Court. Shri Deshmukh the learned Counsel for the petitioner union has vehemently submitted that the respondent company has ill-intentions and motives to shift the factory from the original place to the neighbouring place which was a tenanted land and after getting the existing structure vacated it would develop the land by building a 57 storied skyscrapper. Shri Deshmkh has summarised his submissions as under :-

(3.) SHRI Deshmukh has also attacked the so called voluntary retirement scheme introduced by the respondent company. He was making vehement submissions that there was no scheme which was sanctioned under the Income Tax Act and even nothing was displayed on the notice board and/or the recognised union was not consulted or informed about the so called scheme.