NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD Vs. NICHOLAS EMPLOYEES UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant is a Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceutical products. In the year 1988, nicholas Laboratories India Limited was taken over by the Piramal Group. They are having manufacturing plants at Thane, Mahad in maharashtra, Pithampur in Madhya Pradesh, baddi in Himachal Pradesh, Digwal in Andhra pradesh and Ennore in Tamil Nadu. The appellant Company acquired the Plant at mulund on 7th February, 2000 and wanted to expand its business in the field of manufacturing. The Company wanted to start manufacturing of Haemaccel which is a large volume parental product and a life saving drug and therefore, transferred certain workmen from its erstwhile Deonar establishment which had become an unviable unit on a stand-alone basis. The order of transfer was challenged by the workmen by filing a complaint under the maharashtra Recognition of trade Unions and prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 before the Learned Industrial Court, mumbai, being Complaint (ULP) No. 172 of 2000. The workmen did not report for work at haemaccel Plant between the period from 7th february, 2000 to 20th September, 2000. It was only after the High Court had passed an order that the workmen reported to their duty at the transferred place. The Company on account of business necessities decided to shift its Haemaccel Plant from Mulund, Mumbai to baddi in the State of Himachal Pradesh in the year 2008. Discussions were held with the representatives of the Union on the subject matter of shifting of the said plant and prior to holding of meetings with the Union, the appellant addressed a letter dated 14th February, 2008 to the Union pointing out the exigencies and the necessities which required the Appellant to shift its plant from Mumbai to Baddi in himachal Pradesh. On 25th February, 2008 individual letters of transfers were issued to the employees and they were informed that due arrangements in respect of their transfer from mumbai to Baddi, as well as the arrangements for providing them shared accommodation for a period not exceeding 30 days from the date of reaching Baddi establishment will also be made.

(2.) IT is the case of the Company that transferability of the employees is an express condition of service and also an established practice in the Appellant company. The company had a right to transfer its employees from one establishment to another in terms of clause 8 of the Letter of Appointment issued by the Company to these employees.

(3.) ON or about 11th March, 2008, 26 employees filed a Complaint of unfair labour practices before the Industrial Court, Mumbai, being Complaint (ULP) No. 118 of 2008, inter alia, challenging the action of the transfer of 26 workers from Mumbai to Baddi. An application for interim order was also filed praying that the order of transfer should be stayed as well as the Company should be restrained from moving, selling, alienating or disposing of the plant and the machinery from the Haemeccel Plant at mumbai. These prayers in the application and the Complaint were resisted by the Company by filing detailed statement and also requisite documents.