H N DESAI Vs. BHOR INDUSTRIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners herein are workmen working under the respondent No. 1 company. They have filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 12th August, 1999 passed by a member of the Industrial Court (respondent No. 4 herein) under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ("m. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act" for short) in Complaint (U. L. P.) Nos. 745 and 746 of 1999 declining to confirm the ad-interim in junction which had been granted earlier in that matter and vacating the same. The interim application at Exhibit- UZ in those two complaints stood dismissed by that order. The respondents No. 2 and to this petition are Mr. Raghavan Sr. Vice President (Mfg.) and Mr. Tondavalkar, General Manager (Personnel and Administration ).

(2.) THE facts leading to this petition are as follows:---It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners and other workmen resigned from their erstwhile trade Union- Bhartiya Kamgar Sena and joined one Chemical Employees Union on 6th July 1997. It is their further case that they informed the management about their resignation on 8th July 1997. The workmen apprehended that the management would close down the particular unit situated at Borivli in Mumbai and therefore they filed an earlier complaint bearing Complaint (ULP) No. 951 of 1997 against the apprehended closure. The learned Judge of the Industrial Court was pleased to grant an ad-interim injunction thereby restraining the respondents from effecting the closure. That order was passed on 17th August, 1997. Thereafter the 1st respondent put up a notice on 19th October, 1997 intimating the workmen that a lock-out will be effected from 4th November, 1997. Thereafter the Industrial Court rejected the interim relief application filed by the workmen in that ULP complaint which led to an earlier writ petition bearing No. 1980 of 1997. The matter initially appeared before my brother Lodha, J. , who rejected the interim prayers. Subsequently the matter came before my brother A. P. Shah, J. , who passed a consent order on 30th July 1998 directing the respondents to lift the lock-out. Subsequently certain clarifications of that order were sought and the workers were expected to give production as per certain norms which were agreed in an earlier settlement between the recognised Union (Bhartiya Kamgar Sena) and the management in the year 1994. The work was supposed to resume thereafter. It is the case of the respondent management that accordingly the work was started at the end of September 1998, but the actual production process is reported to have started on 17th October 1998. Thereafter in July 1999, i. e. on 15th July 1999 and 17th July 1999, some 190 workmen were issued transfer letters directing them to report to the place of work at Satara and Baroda. That led to filling of the present complaint (ULP) Nos. 745 and 746 of 1999 seeking an injunction against implementing those transfer letters/orders. Initially, as stated above, an ad-interim order was granted, but subsequently the same was vacated and the interim application came to be rejected by the order dated 18th August 1999. Being aggrieved by that order, the present petition has been filed.

(3.) THE petitioners have filed an additional compilation of documents and on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 3, the respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit. Mr. Cama has appeared for the petitioners whereas Mr. Singhvi represented respondents No. 1 to 3.