VOLTAS EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. VOLTAS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions impugn the Award dated 2nd March, 2002 of the Industrial Tribunal made in a reference under section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for permission to close down two units of Voltas Limited the petitioner company in Writ Petition No. 2041 of 2002. The petitioner company in Writ Petition No. 2041 of 2002 has challenged the award in so far as it refuses permission to close down their Research and Development Unit at Thane (hereinafter referred to as "r and D" ). In Writ Petition No. 1957 of 2002, the petitioner union, namely, Voltas Employees Union, has challenged the award of the Industrial Tribunal granting permission to close down the Cooling Appliances Business Division (hereinafter referred to as "cabd") of respondent No. 1 company at Thane. Since these are cross-writ petitions, it would be easier to refer to the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1957 of 2002 and respondent No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 2041 of 2002 as the "union" and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2041 of 2002 and respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 1957 of 2002 as the "employer".

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is as follows :-

(3.) ON 18th June, 1999, the Employer displayed a notice suspending temporarily the second shift operation from 21st June, 1999. The workers were directed not to report for work, but were informed that their salaries, wages and other allowances would be paid. Aggrieved by this, the union filed another complaint under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act being Complaint (U. L. P.) No. 429 of 1999. An interim order was passed by the Industrial Court restraining the employer from acting upon its notice of 18th June, 1999 and directing it to permit the 199 workmen affected to resume their duties as usual. Another complaint being Complaint (U. L. P.) No. 126 of 1999 was filed by the union as the employer was removing machinery from CABD and shifting at to Dadra and Hyderabad. This process of shifting was done as about 170 workmen were sitting idle at Thane and the machinery was required for being used in the manufacturing activities at Dadra and Hyderabad. An application was moved in this complaint by the employer for removing certain machines from C. A. B. D. , Thane. This application was rejected by the Industrial Court vide its order dated 23rd August 2001 by declining to grant permission to remove the machineries mentioned in the Annexures to the said application. The order of the Industrial Court dated 23rd August, 2001 was impugned by the employer by filing Writ Petition No. 4054 of 2001 in this Court. This writ petition was rejected and the complaint was expedited. Complaint (U. L. P.) No. 126 of 1999 was finally heard and dismissed by the Industrial Court on 5th September, 2002. Complaint (U. L. P.) No. 532 of 2000 was also filed by the union for a declaration that the employer had committed an unfair labour practice by shifting the manufacturing activities from Thane to Dadra and Nagar Haveli. By an interim order of 11th July, 2001, the Industrial Court restrained the employer from outsourcing AC and RBG manufacturing from Thane so as to adversely affect the manufacturing activities of that plant. This complaint came to be dismissed by the Industrial Court on 4th July, 2002.