Reportable HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No.3283 of 2025

01^st December, 2025 Balmer Lawrie Van Leer Ltd ……..Petitioner Versus Sunil Kumar Prajapati ……….Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Sahil Mullick, Advocate for the petitioner.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

This writ petition, instituted under Article

226/227 of the Constitution of India, calls into question the legality and propriety of the Reference Order dated 30.03.2021 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Uttarakhand, whereby an industrial dispute between the petitioner/company and respondent no.1 was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Dehradun under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The petitioner asserts that the impugned reference is wholly without jurisdiction, ex facie erroneous, and founded upon a manifest non-application of mind, particularly inasmuch as the respondent was not a “workman” within the meaning of Section 2(z) of the Act, and further that the cause of action did not arise within the State of Uttarakhand. It is in this backdrop that the petitioner seeks quashing of the reference and all consequential proceedings.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, Balmer Lawrie Van Leer Ltd., is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of plastic containers for industrial and allied use, operating an industrial unit at Selaqui, Dehradun. The respondent, Sunil Kumar Prajapati, joined the petitioner-company on 07.02.2013 as Officer-Commercial, a position which he duly accepted in writing. He was subsequently confirmed in service w.e.f. 01.03.2014. His responsibilities encompassed a range of administrative and supervisory functions, including control over H.R. functions, accounts, dispatch and store-related activities. Over time, his salary increased from ₹14,629/- to ₹27,491/- per month, and he also enjoyed various benefits and reimbursements which were not available to the workmen category. Owing to business exigencies and operational requirements at the petitioner’s Chennai plant, the respondent was transferred from the Dehradun unit to the Chennai unit with effect from 04.05.2019 by order dated 02.05.2019, a transfer in consonance with Clause 11(b) of his appointment letter, which expressly provided that his services were transferable to any department, office, establishment or unit of the company anywhere in India or abroad. While the transfer letter required him to join at Chennai by 09.05.2019, he repeatedly sought extensions of time and expressed inability to join on grounds of ill-health, paucity of time and family commitments. The petitioner, granted extensions and repeatedly advised him to join by 20.05.2019. However, despite multiple reminders dated 09.05.2019, 10.05.2019, 27.05.2019 and others, the respondent did not report at the transferred location. Even thereafter, the respondent remained absent without authorization, prompting the Chennai management to issue “Non-Reporting for Duty” notices on 24.06.2019 and 06.07.2019, reminding him of his prolonged unauthorized absence. In response, the respondent categorically communicated, vide email dated

06.07.2019, that he would not report at the Chennai unit.

3. Consequently, the petitioner initiated domestic enquiry proceedings and served a charge-sheet dated

09.08.2019, alleging willful disobedience of lawful orders, habitual absence without leave, and misconduct under the applicable standing orders. The respondent’s explanation dated 21.08.2019 reiterated his refusal to join and cited personal commitments. He was thereafter served with a notice of enquiry dated 15.11.2019, duly apprised of his rights, including the right to present evidence and cross- examine management witnesses, and was warned that non- participation would lead to ex parte procee