2015 Supreme(SC) 369

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. GOPALA GOWDA, C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.
M/S. ARIANE ORGACHEM PVT. LTD. – APPELLANT
VERSUS
WYETH EMPLOYEES UNION & OTHERS – RESPONDENTS
Civil Appeal No. 246 of 2009 with C.A. No. 247 of 2009
Decided On : 29-04-2015

IMPORTANT POINTS
Refusal to make an order of reference by delegate of the State Government amounts to determination of the dispute in the absence of relevant and material evidence and is not permissible.
Question of law can be raised at any stage of litigation.
If cause of action and subject matters are different, a litigation under ID Act, 1947 will not be barred by section 59 of MRTU and PULP Act 1971.

Headnote:(a) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 2(k) and 10(1)(d) – Mere transfer of assets and not the business – Whether a transfer of undertaking u/s 25FF – Whether acceptance of VRS benefits was voluntary – Whether fixation of VRS compensation was arbitrary – Allegations of coercion to implement VRS – Disputed questions of fact and law – Constitute industrial dispute – Decision beyond jurisdiction of Deputy Labour Commissioner – Require adjudication by Industrial Tribunal – High Court rightly quashing order of refusal to make reference. (Para 22, 23, 24, 27)

       (2009) 1 SCC 267 – Relied upon

       (1951) SCR 548; (1975) 2 SCC 818; (1976) 1 SCC 60; (2003) 2 SCC 721; (2003) 5 SCC 163; (2004) 2 SCC 193; (2004) 4 SCC 484; (2006) 9 SCC 177; (2006) 5 SCC 759; (2003) 11 SCC 572; (2000) 3 SCC 93; (2005) 12 SCC 738 – Distinguished

       (b) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 10(1)(d) – Failure report of conciliation proceedings – Not sufficient for State Government to make/or not to make an order of reference – Refusal to make an order of reference – Amounts to determination of the dispute in the absence of relevant and material evidence – Not permissible. (Para 25)

       (1985) 3 SCC 189; AIR 1964 SC 1617 – Relied upon

       (c) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 10(1)(d) r/w section 39(b) – Notification issued u/s 39(b) – Empowering Labour Commissioner and the Additional Labour Commissioner to exercise its power under Section 10(1),(2) & (3) and other provisions of the Act – Deputy Commissioner of Labour not empowered u/s 10(1)(d) – His order refusing to make reference void ab initio – Rightly quashed by High Court. (Para 28)

       (d) Administration of Justice – Question of law – Can be raised at any stage of litigation – Respondents raising question of law based on admitted facts before the Supreme Court for the first time – No illegality. (Para 28, 29)

       (1892) A.C 473, 480 (PC); (1976) 2 SCC 152; (2013) 6 SCC 278; (2010) 9 SCC 157; (2011) 12 SCC 695; (1979) 4 SCC 176 – Relied upon

       (e) MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 – Section 59 – Respondent Union filing complaint under the Act challenging transfer of undertaking, cause of action for which arose on 30.8.2004 – Present is an industrial dispute regarding alleged coercion in obtaining VRS applications by the appellant-Company – This dispute raised under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Cause of action for the dispute arising on 15.4.2005 – Present litigation, held, not barred by section 59. (Para 32)

       Facts of the case:

       The appellant-Company took over the alleged loss incurring pharmaceutical factory of M/s. Wyeth Ltd. respondent No.3 herein (appellant-Company in C.A.247 of 2009), along with its permanent employees on 30.08.2004 pursuant to an agreement dated 25.6.2004 and the sale deed dated 30.6.2004. Letters were issued to the workmen by the appellant to the effect that they would be employed under its management without any interruption in their services.

       On 31.8.2004 respondent No.3 issued letters to its workmen working in its erstwhile factory, informing them about the sale and transfer of the ownership and management of the said factory to the appellant-Company. They were further informed that their services will not be interrupted due to such transfer and their services will be treated as continuous and uninterrupted for the purpose of retiral/terminal benefits.

       Thereafter, all the workmen whose employment came to be transferred from M/s Wyeth Ltd. to the appellant-Company started drawing their wages/salary and all other benefits like advance, LTA and leave, etc. from the appellant.

       On 2.9.2004, the respondent no.1-Wyeth Employees Union filed Complaint (ULP) before the Industrial Court challenging the sale and transfer of employment of the employees but no interim relief was granted by the Industrial Court, hence, all the workmen came on the rolls of appellant-Company and started drawing wages from it.

       The appellant framed Voluntary Retirement Scheme for the workmen, offering amounts, tax free, to each workman with all other dues such as gratuity, ex-gratia, provident fund, leave encashment etc. which was operative from 12.4.2005 to 30.4.2005. On 15.04.2005, 45 out of the total 143 workmen applied for the said VRS and collected the VRS payments and the remaining workmen collected the VRS payments on 20.04.2005 and 21.04.2005. After the payment of the VRS benefits, the workmen were relieved from their services by the appellant-Company.

       After several months of accepting the VRS, the respondent-Union raised the demand seeking their reinstatement in the Company of respondent no.3.

       The respondent-Union, sought intervention of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, in respect of their demand with the Company. The

       Deputy Labour Commissioner declined to make an order of reference to the Industrial Tribunal stating thereby that there was no industrial dispute in existence between the parties.

       Thereafter, the first respondent-Union filed Writ Petition.

       The High Court quashed the order passed by Deputy Commissioner of Labour and directed him to make an order of reference to the Industrial Tribunal with regard to the demand of industrial dispute raised by the Union dated 14.11.2005 on behalf of the concerned workmen, for its adjudication under Section 10(1)(d) of the ID Act.

       Finding of the Court:

       The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is perfectly legal and valid and the same does not call for interference.

       Result: All writ petitions allowed.