SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
BROOKE BOND EMPLOYEES UNION THR ITS GENERAL SECRETARY – Appellant
Versus
HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED THR ITS RETGIONAL MANAGER AND OTHERS – Respondent
LPA 507/2011



Advocates:
['DS THAKUR', 'SD THAKUR', 'HV THAKUR/CAV/R- TO', '', 'VR & HV THAKUR/R']

LPA 507-11

1

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 507/2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.

1133

/20

02

(D)

WITH

CROSS-OBJECTION

STAMP

NO.

2805/2012

Brooke Bond Employees Union,

C/o R.T. Wankhede, Plot No.127,

Shilpa Nagar, Narendra Nagar, Nagpur

400015 through its General Secretary.

APPELLANT

.....VERSUS..…

1.

Hindustan Unilever Limited,

through its Regional Manager,

having its office at Uttara, Plot No.2,

Sector 11, CBD Belapur, New Mumbai 400 614.

2.

Hindustan Lever Limited,

through its Chairman, Hindustan Lever House,

165/166, Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai.

3.

M/s Hindustan Lever Ltd.,

Hindustan Lever House, 165/166, Backbay

Reclamation, Mumbai 400 020 through

its Regional Personnel Manager (West),

(Unit Manager-Regional Accounts Office,Nagpur).

4.

Member,

Industrial Court, Maharashtra,

Nagpur Bench, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

R ESPONDENTS

__________________________________________________________________________

Shri S.D. Thakur and Shri D.S. Thakur, counsel for the appellant.

Shri H.V. Thakur, counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3.

CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND G.A. SANAP, JJ.

DATE ON WHICH ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD :

05

TH

OCTOBER

, 2021

.

DATE

ON

WHICH JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED

:

29

TH

OCTOBER,

2021

.

JUDGMENT (PER : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

This letters patent appeal filed under Clause 15 of the letters

patent takes exception to the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated

21.10.2011 in Writ Petition 1133 of 2002. By the said judgment, the writ

petition preferred by the respondent nos.1 to 3 herein for challenging the

judgment passed by the Industrial Court Nagpur on 27.02.2002 has been

allowed and that judgment passed by the Industrial Court allowing the

complaint filed by the appellant has been set aside.

LPA 507-11

2

Judgment

2.

The brief facts that are relevant for deciding the challenges as

raised are that it is the case of the appellant-Union through its General

Secretary that it comprises of the employees of the erstwhile Brooke Bond

India Limited. The said company was subsequently acquired by

Hindustan Lever Limited through its parent company in the year 1984.

The parent company had also acquired another company named Lipton

India Limited. Both these companies were then merged in the year 1994

to form Brooke Bond Lipton India Limited. This company was then

merged into Hindustan Lever Limited. According to Union the Federation

of its employees is the apex body of trade unions. From 1962 onwards

various agreements were entered into by the Federation with the

Management of Brooke Bond India Limited concerning service conditions

and pay-scales of its employees. According to the Union representing

about nineteen employees of the Regional Accounts Office, Nagpur the

activities of the Regional Accounts Office and the manufacturing activities

carried out at different factories especially the factory at Kanhan were

interrelated and interdependent. All of them were thus constituted one

industrial establishment. The services of the employees of Brooke Bond

India Limited were transferable from various factories to the Regional

Accounts Office and vice versa. On 05.01.2001 a notice of closure was

displayed by the Management at the Regional Accounts Office, Nagpur.

As per that notice which was not preceded by a notice of change as

required by Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the

Act of 1947’) the activities of the Regional Accounts Office, Nagpur were

LPA 507-11

3

Judgment

closed down. Since this notice of closure did not contain any reason and

was issued without granting any opportunity to the members of the

Union, the same resulted in commission of unfair labour practice within

the meaning of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of

Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for

short,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top