VIP INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. VIP INDUSTRIES SHRAMIK SANGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Company is a manufacturer of luggage and apart from its industrial undertaking at Nagpur, it has two manufacturing units, one at Sinnar, District Nasik and the other at Haridwar, Uttarakhand. The workmen in the Nagpur plant of the appellant Company are represented by the first respondent the recognized Union and their conditions of service are governed by the terms of the appointment letter as well as the terms settled by the management and the first respondent Union. The last settlement governing the conditions of service of the workmen ended on 31.12.2010 and the respondent Union gave a fresh charter of demands. Nothing happened in the matter for a long time and the respondent Union approached the Conciliation Officer under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Conciliation Officer issued a notice to the appellant Company on 18.03.2011. The meetings before the Conciliation Officer were held on 24.03.2011, 16.05.2011, 31.05.2011, 14.06.2011 and 30.06.2011.

(2.) The appellant Company was carrying on the operations of manufacturing on job work basis at the Nagpur plant in view of a contract between the appellant Company and a company named B.P. Ergo Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'B.P.E.L.' for the sake of brevity). It is the case of the appellants that B.P.E.L. was not interested in renewing the contract with the appellant and after some persuasion by the appellant Company, a contract was signed by the appellant Company and B.P.E.L. but, the renewed contract curtailed the scope of the original contract in the sense that lesser job work was required to be performed by the appellant Company. The appellant Company wanted to protect all the 216 employees working at the Nagpur plant but, it could not do so in view of the curtailment of the contract by B.P.E.L. Only 76 workmen could be utilized by the appellant Company for the job work in Nagpur plant and for about 140 employees, there was no work. In this background, it is the case of the appellant Company that the company desired to transfer 90 employees to Sinnar, Nasik District and 50 to Haridwar (Uttarakhand), where the appellant Company had its units. The transfer orders were issued on 14.07.2011. The employees were relieved on 15.07.2011 and the appellant Company granted time to the employees to report at Sinnar and Haridwar till 31 st of July. After the transfers were effected, an application was filed by the respondent no.1 Union before the Conciliation Officer under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking appropriate action against the appellant Company for breach of the provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The application was moved by the respondent Union on 16.07.2011 and after serving a copy of the same on the appellant Company, the Conciliation Officer fixed the meeting on 19.07.2011. On 19.07.2011, the appellant Company filed the reply and the first meeting of conciliation was fixed on 26.07.2011. According to the appellant Company though the matter was fixed before the Conciliation Officer on 26.07.2011, the appellant Company was surprised to come across a stay order passed by the Conciliation Officer on 21.07.2011 staying the order transferring the employees from Nagpur to Sinnar and Haridwar. The order passed by the Conciliation Officer during the conciliation proceedings on 21.07.2011 was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3535/2011. The learned Single Judge, however, by the order dated 09.08.2011, was pleased to dismiss the writ petition.

(3.) The order passed by the Conciliation Officer is challenged in this appeal on several grounds. According to the appellant, the order transferring the 140 employees was not passed during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings and, therefore, the Conciliation Officer did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the respondent no.1 Union under Section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to the appellant Company, the conciliation proceedings commenced on 19.07.2011 when the demands of the respondent no.1 were admitted and the notice was issued to the appellant Company under Rule 11 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957. It is the case of the appellant Company that the meetings held before 19.07.2011 were pre conciliation meetings and, hence, it cannot be said that the appellant Company had transferred the employees during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings by the order dated 14.07.2011.