BALASAHEB RANGNATH NAVALE Vs. BHARAT FORGE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions take exception to the Common judgment and Order dated April 26, 2006 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Jalgaon, by which Complaint (ULP) No. 104 of 2002 to 120 of 2002 were dismissed. The said complaints were filed by about 17 workers of the respondent Company working at Jalgaon. Amongst these 17 workers, 7 have filed the above petitions.

(2.) The respondent company had three units, one at Mundhawa, Pune, one at Satara and one at Jalgaon. The petitioners were working in various capacities since the year 1987 or thereabout in the Jalgaon Plant. On account of the Jalgaon plant becoming financially not viable, the respondent company intended to close down the said plant and issued a notice of closure on February 11, 2001. The petitioners by their letter dated March 11, 2001 immediately approached the respondent company and applied for V.R.S., which had been floated by the respondent company. The applications of the petitioners were accepted by the respondent company and the same was communicated to the petitioners by letter dated March 12, 2001 and they were paid lump-sum amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- each. The said amounts were accepted by the petitioners as also relieving orders issued by the respondent company.

(3.) The workers amongst whom were the petitioners, somewhere in March, 2002 filed the said Complaint (ULP) s No. 104 of 2002 to 120 of 2002 invoking Item-9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The sum and substance of the case of the petitioners in the said Complaints was that by the said closure the services of the petitioners have been illegally terminated. It was further the case of the petitioners that there is functional integrality in between three units of the respondent company and that the petitioners could have been accommodated in one of the other two units of the respondent company. The said Complaints were opposed by the respondent company by filing its Written Statement. After taking the preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the Complaints under Item-9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the said Act, the respondent company has contended that the said Complaints were not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioners had availed of the V.R.S. and therefore the relationship of employer and employee had come to an end. The respondent company denied that there was functional integrality between the three units. It was contended that the petitioners of their own volition, vide their applications dated March 11, 2001 had requested for being given the benefits of the V.R.S., which the respondent company had accepted by letter dated March 12, 2001 and having accepted the V.R.S. the Complaints filed by them, were not maintainable.