HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. Vs. HINDUSTAN LEVER MAZDOOR SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule is directed against an order passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta, holding that the suit filed by the opposite party is maintainable.

(2.) Mr. Roy Mukherjee on behalf of the petitioner contended, inter - alia, that the suit is not maintainable as the prayer is for the enforcement of a contract of personal service by the plaintiffs. The opposite parties, a trade union and a workman filed the suit in the City Civil Court, Calcutta alleging inter alia, that the petitioner company's work, administration and business were divided into 3 divisions, namely, Soap's division, Toilets preparation divisions and Foods division. In 1966 the management of the defendant company on the plea of reorganisation wrongfully and without complying with the mandatory provisions of law decided to introduce a system of two divisional working instead of the then prevailing three - divisional working. The proposed two divisions were the main lines divisions and speciality lines division. The said proposed changes by introduction of the two divisional systems adversely affected the conditions of service of the employees of the defendant company. Against the said two divisional system an industrial dispute cropped up on the issue whether the said changes introduced by the management in the name of reorganisation were justified and the matter was referred to the 3rd Industrial Tribunal by the Government of West Bengal. In the said Reference, it is alleged, seven applications were filed by seven workmen under section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act which were disposed of by the Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal by an Award dated 23rd March, 1967. Thereafter the company appealed before the Supreme Court of India against the said Award given by the Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal on 23rd March, 1967 and those appeals are still pending. In the said appeals pending before the Supreme Court, the company gave the following undertakings:-

(3.) On this pleading the petitioner contended that the suit is not maintainable as the suit is for the enforcement of the personal service. The opposite party however contended that this is not a case of enforcement of the personal service and the suit is maintainable. The learned Judge, City Civil Court, having held against the defendant, the petitioner Challenges the finding about the maintainability in the present proceeding.