1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. In the first petition, the Petitioners are the Workers, who are aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the Industrial Court dated 31.03.2016 by which Complaint (ULP) No.35/2014 has been dismissed and their transfer orders dated 08.02.2014 are sustained.

3. In the second petition, the Petitioner is the Employer who has prayed for refund of the money which has been paid to the Workers by way of an interim arrangement by the order passed by this Court on 27.08.2015 in Writ Petition No.8728/2014 in between these parties. The said amount was paid to the Workers with the direction that the issue of payment of salary from the date of transfer till the decision in the complaint would be subject to the pleadings of the parties and the decision of the Industrial Court. It is, therefore, prayed by the Employer that the amount deposited and/or paid to the Workers, should be refunded to the Employer.

4. For the sake of brevity, in both the petitions, the Workers of the Factory shall be referred to as “the Workers”. The Management shall be referred to as “the Employer”.

5. The contentions of the Workers can be summarized as under:-

(a) They have been transferred malafide by the Employer in the guise of following the management policy by the order of transfer dated 08.02.2014.

(b) On 03.02.2014, the Workers had joined the Bhartiya Kamgar Union and had served the letter on the Employer informing him that the Workers working in the said factory have become the members of the said Union.

(c) On 07.02.2014 in the middle of the night, the Employer has shifted the machines out of the shop floor and has carried them to the another factory at Sanaswadi, Pune.

(d) On 08.02.2014, the Employer issued the orders of transfer to each of these Workers on the pretext that the machines have been shifted from the Machine Shop to the Machining Hub at Pune and these Workers are being transferred to the group company.

(e) The workers were directed to report for duties from 10.02.2014 at Amtek Auto Limited, Gat No.1074-1085, Sanaswadi, District Pune.

(f) The Employer is shown to be headed by the multinational joint group of Amtek, which has it's headquarter in India. The said group is one of the largest integrated components manufacturers in India and is engaged in the business of manufacturing forging components, flies wheel wring gears and also engaged in the business of machining of variety of large and medium size automobile components.

(g) Because these workers joined the Bhartiya Kamgar Union, the machines were shifted overnight and the workers were transferred to a different employer.

(h) Their transfers amount to change in service conditions as they are sought to be handed over to a different employer.

(i) Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been violated since the notice of change in service conditions was not issued.

(j) The workers have deposed before the Industrial Court by leading evidence and it is established that the workers have been transferred to a different employer and for unjustified reasons.

(k) In cross-examination of the employer's witness, it is admitted that these workers are employees of the employer and have been shifted to a different factory.

(l) The Industrial Court has lost sight of the material aspects and has dismissed the complaint by concluding that the workers have not succeeded in proving that their services were engaged only with the respondent/employer.

(m) The Industrial Court has proceeded on an erroneous conclusion that these workers were recruited for performing the work at different places and not exclusively for the respondent/employer.

(n) Reliance is placed upon the following judgments:-

(i) Sunil Kumar Ghosh vs. K.Ram Chandran, 2011(14) SCC 320.

(ii) Crest Communication Limited, Mumbai vs. Ms.Sheetal Shenoy, 2001 (4) Mh.L.J. 919.

(iii) Bajaj Auto Limited vs. Shrikant Vinayak Yogi, 2006 (3) Mh.L.J. 557.

(iv) S.G. Chemica