IMPORTANT POINT
It is settled law that without consent, workmen cannot be forced to work under different management and in that event, those workmen are entitled to retirement/retrenchment compensation in terms of the Act.

Headnote:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10(2) -Appellants employees/workers of Philips India Ltd. filed a Writ Petition against proposed transfer of ownership of the Consumer Electronics Factory of said company to Kitchen Appliances India Ltd -Vide order dated 8.10.2001, writ petition was disposed off with a direction to pay retirement/retrenchment benefits to the workers-Contempt Application was filed by workers, inter alia, alleging violation of order dated 08.10.2001 which was dismissed by single Judge of High Court on 20.06.2008. - Appeal-Dismissed by High Court—Appeals against final judgments and orders dated 20.06.2008 and 25.08.2008 passed by High Court whereby it dismissed contempt application and appeal filed by appellants - employees/workers of Philips India Ltd. - Without consent, workmen cannot be forced to work under different management and in that event, those workmen are entitled to retirement/retrenchment compensation in terms of the Act- In view of the same, held that workmen were entitled to benefit of such direction and it was the obligation on part of Management- Philips India Ltd., to comply with the same. - A perusal of directions passed by single Judge left no room for doubt that a mandatory duty was cast upon respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to comply with the same- In such circumstances, it was highly improper on the part of the Management to turn around and not to comply with directions passed by single Judge- The entire genesis of contempt application pertained to violation of order dated 08.10.2001 passed by single Judge - High Court, in the impugned order, instead of dismissing the contempt application ought to have directed respondents to implement order dated 8.10.2001 passed by single Judge-Direction given to respondent-Philips India Ltd. to comply with directions made by single Judge -Appeals allowed (Paras 10 to 14)
       Facts of the Case :
        Appellants employees/workers of Philips India Ltd. Herein in the instant case filed a Writ Petition against proposed transfer of ownership of the Consumer Electronics Factory of said company to Kitchen Appliances India Ltd .Vide order dated 8.10.2001, writ petition was disposed off with a direction to pay retirement/retrenchment benefits to the workers. A Contempt Application was filed by workers, inter alia, alleging violation of order dated 08.10.2001 which was dismissed by single Judge of High Court on 20.06.2008. Appeal thereagainst was Dismissed by High Court.
        B. Present Appeals have been filed against final judgments and orders dated 20.06.2008 and 25.08.2008 passed by High Court whereby it dismissed contempt application and appeal filed by appellants - employees/workers of Philips India Ltd.
       Findings of the Court :
        A. It is settled law that without consent, workmen cannot be forced to work under different management and in that event, those workmen are entitled to retirement/retrenchment compensation in terms of the Act. In view of the same, held that workmen were entitled to benefit of such direction and it was the obligation on part of Management- Philips India Ltd., to comply with the same. Single Judge was conscious of the fact that these workmen failed to avail the VRS within stipulated time and also did not retire from the service. However, taking note of fact that workmen could not be compelled to join transferee company against their wish and without their consent and all along fighting for their cause in various forums held that single Judge was fully justified in passing such order.
        B.A perusal of directions passed by single Judge left no room for doubt that a mandatory duty was cast upon respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to comply with the same. In such circumstances, it was highly improper on the part of the Management to turn around and to contend that there was no question to comply with directions passed by single Judge.
        C. The entire genesis of contempt application pertained to violation of order dated 08.10.2001 passed by single Judge of High Court. High Court, in the impugned order, instead of dismissing the contempt application ought to have directed respondents to implement the order dated 8.10.2001 passed by single Judge. Direction was given to respondent-Philips India Ltd. to comply with directions made by single Judge .Appeals were allowed.

JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) These appeals are directed against the final judgments and orders dated 20.06.2008 and 25.08.2008 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in CPAN No. 539 of 2002 and MAT No. 519 of 2008 respectively whereby the High Court dismissed the contempt application and the appeal filed by the appellants herein - employees/workers of Philips India Ltd.

3) Brief facts:

(a) The appellants are the employees/workers of Philips India Ltd. (in short ‘the Company’) having its Registered office at No. 7, Justice Chandra Madhab Road, Calcutta and its Consumer Electronics Factory at Salt Lake City, Calcutta. In the year 1997, the Company introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme (in short “VRS”) for its workmen and majority of them opted for and accepted the same. On 30.09.1998, the Company entered into an Agreement for Sale of its Consumer Electronics Factory at Salt Lake City with Kitchen Appliances India Limited, a subsidiary of Videocon International Ltd. as a going concern together with all assets and liabilities. Vide letter dated 12.10.1998, the Company informed the Secretary of Workers’ Union about having signed the agreement and also withdrew the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) launched in the year 1997. For effecting transfer, the Company circulated a Notice for Extra-ordinary General Meeting of its share holders and circulated a Proposed Resolution under Section 293 of the Companies Act, 1956. On 16.11.1998, the Workers’ Union filed an application under Section 10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short ‘the Act’) for referring the dispute to Court of Enquiry, Labour Court/Tribunal.

(b) On 01.12.1998, a Suit being Civil Suit No. 483 of 1998 was instituted in the High Court at Calcutta by two Employees’ Unions in representative capacity against the proposed resolution to be passed at the extra-ordinary general meeting of the Company. Vide order dated 16.03.1999, the learned single Judge of the High Court passed an order of injunction restraining the Company from giving effect to the said Resolution and to the Agreement for Sale dated 30.09.1998. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, the Company filed an appeal being APO No. 230 of 1999 before the Division Bench of the High Court. Vide order dated 13.09.1999, the Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by the Company. Thereafter, employees’ unions filed SLP (C) No. 14274 of 1999 before this Court which was dismissed by this Court on 15.10.1999. Against the same, Review Petition No. 1585 of 1999 was filed which was also dismissed.

(c) On 22.12.1999, both the Company and Kitchen Appliances India Ltd. issued a notice informing the employees that consequent upon transfer of ownership of the Consumer Electronics Factory, the employment of all the workmen has been taken over by the Kitchen Appliances India Ltd with immediate effect and their services will be treated as continuous and not interrupted by the transfer of ownership and the terms and conditions of services will not be in any way less favourable than those applicable immediately prior to the transfer of ownership. Workers’ Union filed two title suits being T.S. Nos. 788 and 795 of 1999, inter alia, praying for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the Company from giving effect to notice dated 22.12.1999. On 29.12.1999, the Workers’ Union addressed a letter to the Company submitting their strong protest against the transfer and also stating that the Company has been restrained to give effect to the said notice in view of order dated 23.12.1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Sealdah in Title Suit No. 795 of 1999.

(d) Workers’ Union filed Writ Petition No. 2275 of 1999 before the High Court for early disposal of workers’ application for a reference. Vide order dated 19.09.2000, the writ petition was disposed off with a direction to the Labour Commissioner to pass necessary order either in terms of Sections 12(4) or 12(5) of the Act. O

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 1087

2011 (8) Supreme 333SUPREME COURT OF INDIAP. Sathasivam and J. Chelameswar, JJ. Sunil Kr. Ghosh & Ors. — Appellant(s)versusK. Ram Chandran & Ors. — Respondent(s)Civil Appeal Nos. 9921-9922 of 2011(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11115-11116 of 2009Decided on : 18-11-2011

IMPORTANT POINT It is settled law that without consent, workmen cannot be forced to work under different management and in that event, those workmen are entitled to retirement/retrenchment compensation in terms of the Act.

2011 (8) Supreme 333
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and J. Chelameswar, JJ.
Sunil Kr. Ghosh & Ors. — Appellant(s)
versus
K. Ram Chandran & Ors. — Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal Nos. 9921-9922 of 2011
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11115-11116 of 2009
Decided on : 18-11-2011

IMPORTANT POINT
It is settled law that without consent, workmen cannot be forced to work under different management and in that event, those workmen are entitled to retirement/retrenchment compensation in terms of the Act.