B.R. Gavai, J.

1. Letters Patent Appeal No.397 of 2008 is filed by the Appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24th September 2008, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.8099 of 2007, which was filed by the Respondent No.1 herein, thereby allowing the Writ Petition and remanding the Complaint (ULP) No.534 of 2004 to the learned Industrial Court to decide the same afresh. Letters Patent Appeal No.396 of 2008 is filed by M/s. Wyeth Limited, who was predecessor in interest of the Appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No.397 of 2008.

2. The facts which are not disputed are as under :-

For the sake of convenience, facts in the present case are taken as they appear in Letters Patent No.397 of 2008. At the relevant time, the Respondent No.2 was manufacturing drugs and pharmaceuticals at its Ghatkopar unit. The Respondent No.1 is an union of the employees, who were working on the establishment of the Respondent No.2. An agreement was entered into by the Appellant herein and the Respondent No.2 on 25th June 2004, vide which the Unit No.1 and Unit No.2 of the Respondent No.2 at Ghatkopar were agreed to be sold to the Appellant herein. The deed of sale came to be executed between the Appellant and the Respondent No.2 on 30th August 2004. On the said date, the Appellant also acquired from Respondent No.2 its factory at Ghatkopar. On 31st August 2004, the Appellant as well as Respondent No.2 addressed letters to all its workmen under Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The workmen received letters from the Appellant as well as Respondent No.2 under protest.

3. The Respondent No.1 filed a Complaint (ULP) No.534 of 2004 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the MRTU & PULP Act”) against the Appellant as well as Respondent No.2 challenging transfer of undertaking and sought declaration that they should be continued in the employment of Respondent No.2. Undisputedly after Appellant took over, the salaries of the workmen were being paid by the present Appellant. In pursuance to the transfer, the Appellant had applied for fresh Provident Fund number, which was allotted to the Appellant in November 2004. In November – December 2004, the Respondent No.2 transferred Gratuity Corpus of the workmen from Wyeth Employees' Group Gratuity Fund maintained by LIC. On 10th December 2004, the Respondent No.1 again filed another complaint being Complaint (ULP) No.714 of 2004 being aggrieved by the disciplinary action initiated by the present Appellant. There were other proceedings initiated by the Respondent No.1, however, reference to them would not be necessary for the adjudication of the present Appeals.

4. In the month of March – April 2004, undisputedly, all the 140 employees working with the Appellant had signed various documents with regard to voluntary retirement, upon Appellant making them one time payment. No doubt that, now it is the case of the Respondent No.1 that the said signatures and the receipt of payment were not voluntary. On 26th April 2005, all the complaints i.e. Complaint (ULP) Nos.534 of 2004, 714 of 2004 and 771 of 2004 were withdrawn by the Respondent No.1 under the signature of Mr. Joseph Monteiro, the then General Secretary of the Respondent No.1. It appears that thereafter elections of the office bearers of the Respondent No.1 took place on 31st July 2005, in which election Mr. Joseph Monterio stepped down and Mr. U.N. Karapurkar was elected as General Secretary. The said Mr. U.N. Karapurkar addressed a communication to the Appellant on 14th November 2005, therein alleging force, coercion etc. for opting Voluntary Retirement Scheme (“VRS” for short) and raised demand for reinstatement in service of M/s. Wyeth L