PFIZER EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. PFIZER LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Industrial Court has dismissed a complaint of unfair labour practices under Item 5 of Schedule II and Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. Pfizer was engaged in the production of Protinex, a dietary supplement. On 27th November, 2002 a communication was addressed on behalf of the Company to its employees in India recording the transfer by Pfizer Products Inc., USA of the trade mark 'Protinex' to a Danish food company. Pfizer India, in turn, had entered into three year 'phased sales -transition co -promotion and manufacturing support agreements' with the Danish Company. That led to the institution of the complaint before the Industrial Court.

(2.) THE defence of the first respondent to the complaint was that the trade mark 'Protinex' was owned by a US based Company, Pfizer Product Inc., while the technology for the manufacture of the product was owned by Pfizer Corporation, Panama. The first res.pondent was permitted to use the mark by the U.S. owner of the mark. The technology for the manufacture of Protinex was provided to the first respondent by the Panamanian Company. On 29th November, 2002, the ownership of the trade mark Protinex in India and other countries, was transferred by the U.S. based Pfizer Products Inc. to a Danish Company by the name of East Asiatic Nutrition Limited, Denmark Similarly, Pfizer Corporation Panama transferred the technology for the manufacture of Protinex to the Danish Company. The first respondent was licensed to use the mark. On 29th November, 2002, the Danish Company terminated the licence agreement of the first respondent and thereupon entered into an agreement with the first respondent for the use of the technology to manufacture the product in question for a period of three years upto November, 2005. A licence was also granted to the first respondent for the use of the trade mark by an agreement. All these aspects were, according to the first respondent, discussed with the Union.

(3.) THE Industrial Court adverted to the factual position that the ownership of the trade mark came to be transferred by the U.S. based Company to the Danish Company while the technology for the manufacture of the product was transferred by the Panamanian Company to the Danish Company. The Industrial Court was of the view that since the first respondent had a licence to manufacture the product and to use the technology for a period of three years ending November, 2005, no unfair Labour practice has been established. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Parry and Company Ltd. v. P.C. Pal, Judge, Second Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta 1970 (21) FLR 266 (SC), the Industrial Court held that a matter relating to the organization or restructuring of business activities fell within the domain of the employer and no unfair labour practice could, therefore, be found. Moreover, the service conditions of the workmen had continued as before. The Court also recorded the statement that the 62 employees who were engaged in manufacturing the product would be redeployed in other -areas and departments. The complaint was accordingly dismissed.