ORDER :

1. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi tenders a draft amendment. The same is taken on record and granted.

2. Necessary amendment be carried out forthwith. The amendment reads as under:-

“Indorama Ventures Oxides Ankleshwar Pvt. Ltd.

(earlier known as Huntsman Performance Products

(India) Pvt. Ltd.)

Having its registered Officer at:

6th Floor, B Wing, Marwah Centre,

Krishanlal Larwah Marg,

Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400072

And also at:

Plot No. 321, G. I.D.C.,

Panoli,

Taluka Ankleshwar,

Dist. Bharuch.”

3. In view of the above amendment, the petition which was earlier filed in the name of Huntsman Performance Products International (India) Pvt. Ltd. would now be known as Indorama Ventures Oxides Ankleshwar Pvt. Ltd.. However, for the purpose of clarity and convenience, in the entire order the petitioner is referred to as Huntsman Performance Products International (India) Pvt. Ltd.

4. By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the Labour Court No.1, Bharuch in Review Application No. 1 of 2017.

5. Heard learned advocate Mr. Keyur Gandhi for learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Desai for Gandhi Law Associates for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. Yogen Pandya for the respondent – Workman.

6. Facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition are stated as under:-

The workman was serving in one Laffans Petrochimicals Ltd., at Panoli, Taluka:- Ankaleshwar, District:- Bharuch. On 01.12.2010 his services were allegedly terminated, however, the case of Laffans Petrochimicals Ltd. was that his services were not terminated but he had resigned from the company. After the aforesaid incident took place on 01.12.2010, the workman raised the Industrial Dispute and the same culminated into Reference (LCB) No. 55 of 2011.

7. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 15.04.2011. In the meantime, the Laffans Petrochimicals Ltd. by virtue of scheme of demerger was demerged and the present petitioner i.e. Huntsman International (India) Private Ltd. was demerged from the aforesaid company, the demerger took place on 11.03.2011. Thereafter, the present respondent vide Exh. 8 made an application for impleading the present petitioner as opponent no. 2 in the aforesaid reference (LCB) No. 55 of 2011. On the aforesaid application, an endorsement of No Objection was given by the advocate for the present petitioner and thereafter, the workman filed revised demand notice vide Exh. 15.

8. Thereafter, the present petitioner who was joined as respondent no. 2 appeared before the Labour Court and filed its written statement. As per the written statement, it was brought to the notice of the Court that a scheme of demerger has taken place and on account of the aforesaid scheme of demerger, the present petitioner contested the reference before the Labour Court on merits. Even, in the reply also the present petitioner addressed the issue before the Labour Court on merits.

9. After considering the material available on record and on the basis of evidence recorded by the Labour Court passed an order dated 21.07.2017 passed by Labour Court No. 1 in Reference (LCB) No. 55 of 2011 whereby the reference was partly allowed and the Labour Court ordered Laffans Petrochemicals Ltd. to reinstate the workman within a period of 30 days from the date of publication of the award and also directed the company to pay 20% back wages to the workman from 01.12.2010. The Labour Court also awarded the cost of Rs. 1000/- in favour of the workman.

10. Because of the scheme of demerger, since, the Laffans Petrochemicals Ltd. Plant was occupied by Huntsman Performance Products (India) Private Ltd., the workman felt that it is the present petitioner namely Huntsman Performance Products (India) Private Ltd. against whom the directions were required to be issued.

11. As the factory premises was earlier occupied by Laffans Petrochemicals Ltd. which and taken