SHIVAJI NARAYAN YADAV Vs. INDIA STEEL WORKS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Petition is instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioners are partly aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dtd. 5/12/2020 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No. 263 of 2010. By the said Judgment and Order, the Industrial Court partly allowed the complaint only in respect of Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, and declined to grant reliefs under Items 3 and 10 thereof. The Industrial Court further declined the claim for full back wages and instead awarded a lump sum compensation. Being dissatisfied with the findings so recorded and the reliefs so granted, the Petitioners have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present Petition are as follows. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed with the Respondent Company in January 1996 as a Die Maker. Petitioner No. 2 was appointed on 17/1/1994 as a Grinding Machine Operator. Petitioner No. 3 was appointed in October 1996 as a Polishing Operator. The Petitioners have been engaged in protracted litigation against the Respondent Company concerning their claims for permanency, wages, and other service benefits. In that context, Writ Petition No. 9760 of 2012 preferred by Petitioner No. 1 and Writ Petition No. 5233 of 2008 preferred by Petitioner No. 3 are pending for final hearing before this Court. On 7/8/2010, the Respondent issued transfer orders to the Petitioners stating that all other employees at the Turbhe (Vashi) Unit had resigned and left service, and that the Petitioners were accordingly transferred to India Steel Works Ltd., Khopoli with effect from 9/8/2010. The Petitioners, through their Advocate's letter dtd. 9/8/2010, objected to the said transfer orders on several grounds. They contended that the terms of appointment did not stipulate transferability of service. They further contended that no work corresponding to their original duties was available at Khopoli. It was also asserted that the Turbhe Unit had neither been closed nor had the workmen resigned. The Petitioners further alleged that the transfer orders were actuated by mala fides and amounted to victimisation in view of the earlier litigation initiated by them. By a further Advocate's letter dtd. 10/8/2010, the Petitioners informed the Respondent that they would report for duty at Khopoli under protest, as they were threatened with termination in the event of non-compliance with the transfer orders. On 11/8/2010, the Petitioners, through their Advocate, sought clarification regarding the nature of duties to be assigned at Khopoli, as they were initially not allotted any work and were required to remain idle. Subsequently, they were directed to perform duties such as those of a watchman, housekeeping staff, grass cutting, and sweeping, which, according to the Petitioners, bore no nexus to their original posts. The Respondent failed to respond to the aforesaid communications. In these circumstances, the Petitioners instituted Complaint (ULP) No. 263 of 2010 on 14/10/2010 under Items 3, 5, 9, and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, along with an application for interim relief seeking, inter alia, a stay of the transfer orders and payment of wages. The Petitioners asserted that they were not provided with work commensurate with their original duties upon transfer and that they were subjected to harassment and threats by the management of the Respondent.

(3.) In order to establish their bona fides and substantiate their contentions, the Petitioners preferred several applications before the Industrial Court, though the reliefs sought therein were largely declined. By an application dtd. 6/12/2010, the Petitioners sought production of documents including VRS agreements, records of settlement, and an undertaking from the Respondent to provide the same nature of work as was being performed prior to the transfer. By order dtd. 6/1/2011, the Industrial Court permitted production only of the VRS agreement. By order dtd. 5/4/2011, the Industrial Court rejected the Petitioners' application for interim relief seeking a stay of the transfer order on the ground that the Petitioners had already reported at the transferred place. By an application dtd. 3/3/2012, the Petitioners sought appointment of an Investigating Officer to verify that work at the Turbhe Unit was continuing. The said application was rejected by order dtd. 18/10/2012 on the ground that, since the Petitioners had already reported at Khopoli, the status of the Turbhe Unit was not relevant. On 15/10/2011, the Petitioners addressed a communication through their Advocate to the Respondent complaining of threats to their life allegedly issued by one Mr. Panmand, Manager. On 13/2/2018, the Petitioners placed on record documentary material before the Industrial Court to demonstrate that operations at the Turbhe Unit were continuing, including renewal of factory licences, water bills indicating consumption, and electricity bills reflecting consistent usage. Thereafter, by the impugned Judgment and Order dtd. 5/12/2020, the Industrial Court partly allowed the complaint. The certified copy of the said Judgment and Order was received by the Petitioners on 21/1/2021. By Advocate's letter dtd. 25/1/2021, the Petitioners called upon the Respondent to implement the said Judgment and Order. Petitioner No. 1 attained the age of superannuation on 1/5/2015. Petitioner No. 3 attained the age of superannuation on 22/9/2025. Petitioner No. 2 is due to attain the age of superannuation on 20/11/2026.