The main legal point established is that transferring employees without maintaining the complement prescribed by the settlement and without issuing a notice of change constitutes unfair labor practices under the relevant acts.

Both these petitions arise out of the order passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur, in Complaint (ULPN) No.245/2004 on 10th October, 2005, and since common questions arise for determination in these two writ petitions, they are heard together and are decided by this common judgment.

2.The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.446/2006 is a limited Company dealing in manufacturing and sale of synthetic fibres and draws texturised yarn. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.446/2006 is hereinafter referred to as the "Company" for the sake of brevity. The establishment of the Company consisted of three divisions, viz. Polyester Division, DTY Division and Spun Yarn Division. The Company had entered into an settlement with the elected representatives of the employees on 22.05.2002.

3.The petitioners in Writ Petition No.1481/2006 are the elected representatives of the employees. They are hereinafter referred to as the "Representatives" for the sake of brevity. The representatives had filed the complaint before the Industrial Court, Nagpur, under Section 28 & 30 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. It was the case of the Representatives that the company had transferred their employees from the Quality Control Department and by doing so had effected an illegal change without issuing a notice of change under Section 42(1) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. It was stated in the Complaint that the Company had planned to close down the Quality Control Department and grant the work to the employees of the contractors. It was stated in the complaint filed by the Representatives that the Quality Control Department was required to have 28 employees in terms of Settlement dated 25. 2002. It was stated that the employees working in the Quality Control Department were being shifted and transferred to the POY Department, resulting in bringing out a drastic change in the manning and workload as specified in the Settlement dated 25. 2002. According to the Representatives, the reduction in the manpower and workload was unilateral and without taking the representatives in confidence. It was also stated in the complaint that the action on the part of the company resulted in an illegal change as contemplated under Section 46 of the Act of 1946.

4.The Company filed its rely to the complaint filed by the Representatives. It was stated in the reply that the figure of 28 employees stated by the complainant related only to the Quality Control Department attached to the Polyester Division. It was stated that by the Settlement dated 25. 2002, it was decided that 28 employees will work in the Quality Control Department and 3 other employees would be placed in Multi Skill Pool. It was denied by the Company that any manning and workload norms were fixed by the Settlement dated 25. 2002 or that the Company was acting in contravention of the Settlement. It was specifically denied that the action of the Company resulted in an illegal change. The Company sought for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5.The Industrial Court, Nagpur, by the impugned order dated 10th October, 2005, partly allowed the complaint filed by the representatives and declared that the transfer of 5 employees viz., Chandrashekhar Ukarde, Mangesh Vidhale, Samir Bux, Harihar Rokade and Ravindra Kothe did not amount to unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act of 1971. The Industrial Court, Nagpur, however, held that the transfer of Chhotu Junghare and 19 others from the Quality Control Department to the Packing Department was illegal and amounted to unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act of 1971. The transfer orders of 20 employees from the Quality Control Department were held to be illegal and were set aside. The Company has challenged the part of the order which declares that the Company has committed unfair labour practice by transferring the 20 employees from the Quality Control Department to the Packing Department and di