Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manager Century Yarn/Denim Divisions ... vs President/General Secretary Century ... on 25 November, 2019
Author: S.C.Sharma
Bench: Shailendra Shukla, S.C.Sharma
Miscellaneous Petition No.2296/2019 1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
Miscellaneous Petition No.2296/2019
Manager, Century Textile & Industry Limited & President, Century
Swatantra Ekta ParishadOthers
Indore, dated 15.10.2019
Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Brian-Da-Silva, learned senior counsel along with
Shri Amol Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent.
Arguments heard.
Reserved for order.
(S.C. SHARMA) (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Indore, dated .11.2019
Order passed separately. Signed and dated.
(S.C. SHARMA) (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ravi
Miscellaneous Petition No.2296/2019 2
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE
DIVISION BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.C. SHARMA
& HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SHUKLA
Miscellaneous Petition No.2296/2019
Manager, Century Textile & Industry Limited
v/s
President, Century Swatantra Ekta Parishad & Others
* * * * *
ORDER
Reserved on 15.10.2019 (S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE For consideration of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shailendra Shukla (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE ___/11/2019 Post for /11/2019 (S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE ___/11/2019 Miscellaneous Petition No.2296/2019 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE DIVISION BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.C. SHARMA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SHUKLA Miscellaneous Petition No.2296/2019 Manager, Century Textile & Industry Limited v/s President, Century Swatantra Ekta Parishad & Others Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Brian-Da-Silva, learned senior counsel along with Shri Amol Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent.
ORDER (Delivered on this 25th day of November, 2019 ) Per : S.C. Sharma, J:
The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the orders dated 24.10.2018 and 04.04.2019 passed by the Chairman, Madhya Pradesh Industrial Tribunal in Reference No.41/IDA/2017.
02. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and is having two plants at Village - Satrati, District - Khargone. The petitioner / Company was earlier manufacturing yarn and denim clothes. The respondents No.1 to 4 are registered Union. The respondent No.5 is a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956.
03. The petitioner / Company entered into an Miscellaneous Petition No.2296/2019 4 agreement with respondent No.5 / Wearit Global Limited known as Business Transfer Agreement and a deal took place for transferring the units from the petitioner / Company to respondent No.5 / Company. The workers protested in the matter and took shelter of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and finally, the appropriate government forwarded the reference for adjudication, keeping in view Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the Industrial Tribunal.
04. The reference forwarded in the matter reads as under:-
"D;k lsapqjh ;kuZ ,oa Msful RkFkk fo;fjV Xykscy fyfeVsM ds e/; fctusl VªkUlQj ,xzhesaV ds vuqlkj lsapqjh ;kuZ ,oa Msful dk gLrkarj.k fo;fjV Xykscy fyfeVsM esa fd;s tkus ij gLrkarj.k ds le; fu;ksftr Jfedksa dks LoSfPNd lsok fuo`fRr ;kstuk vFkok LoSfPNd lsizs'ku ;kstuk dk ykHk fn, tkus dk vkSfpR; gS] ;fn gkWa rks bldh D;k ;kstuk gksuh pkfg, ,oa bl lEcU/k esa izca/ku dks D;k funsZ'k fn, tkus pkfg, \"
05. The deal of the transferring the units from petitioner / Company to respondent No.5 / Company was finally cancelled on 31.05.2018 on account of workers' agitation. Thus in short, the genesis on the basis of which the matter has travelled to the Industrial Tribuanl, is not in existence. The Business Transfer Agreement was cancelled and no transfer of unit from petitioner / Company to respondent No.5 / Company took place, and therefore, all consequential action including grant of VRS, VSS and transferring the employees came to an end.
06. The petitioner / Company moved an application before the Tribunal in the pending reference and the same Miscellaneous Petition No.2296/2019 5 was dismissed by the Tribunal on 24.10.2018. The petitioner / Company filed another application informing the Tribunal that the reference itself has become infructuous as the petitioner / Company is not taking action in respect of its units in question keeping in view the fact that the Business Transfer Agreement is not in existence. The application was preferred on 26.02.2019 and again the same was dismissed.
07. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid action by filing the present petition and the petitioner's contention is that since the petitioner is paying salary regularly to all workmen, the Business Transfer Agreement has come to end, and therefore, the reference has become infructuous as no dispute remains to be adjudicated in terms of the reference.
08. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Industrial Tribunal is required to answer the reference only in the event of transfer of units from petitioner / Company to respondent No.5 / Company, however, as the Business Transfer Agreement is not in existence, there appears to be no justification in proceeding ahead with the reference.
9. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ direction or order to quash the impugned order dated 24.10.2018 at Annexure-P/1 and impugned order dated 04.04.2019 at Annexure-
P/2 and to hold that under the facts and Miscellaneous Petition No.2296/2019 6 circumstances of the case the reference has become infructuous and be answered accordingly.
ii) Accord any other relief to the petitioner which this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.
10. A reply has been filed in the matter by respondents No.1, 2 and 3 and in the reply the respondents are harping upon the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, which is a consequence arising out of Business Transfer Agreement and the issue of salary also which was to be paid to the workmen.
11. A reply on behalf of respondent No.6 has also been filed in the matter and again various orders passed from time to time by the Tribunal have been brought to the notice of this Court and also the litigation which is pending between the parties. However, the fact remains that all the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal or by this Court were passed only on account of Business Transfer Agreement dated 22.08.2017.
12. This Court has carefully gone through the reply filed by the respondents and after hearing the parties at length is of the considered opinion that the reference was made only on account of Business Transfer Agreement by which the petitioner / Company was transferring two units to respondent No.5 / Company. The term of reference also deals with the Business Transfer Agreement, transfer of employees and the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, which was to be implemented on account of Business Transfer Agreement. On account of protest of workers in respect of Miscellaneous Petition No.2296/2019 7 Business Transfer Agreement, the Business Transfer Agreement itself has been cancelled and the genesis of the industrial dispute is no longer in existence.
13. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the Business Transfer Agreement has come to an end, the question of Voluntary Retirement Scheme and question of other schemes introduced on account of Business Transfer Agreement, their adjudication doesn't arise. The reference itself has become infructuous, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Business Transfer Agreement has been mutually and irrevocably cancelled and the units now continue to be in possession and management of the petitioner / Company, and therefore, as there is no transfer of units from petitioner / Company to respondent No.5 / Company, the question of determining the amount under scheme of VRS or VSS does not arise.
14. Another important aspect of the case is that the petitioner / Company is paying salary to the workers even though the units are closed and in case, later on, salary or other dues are not paid to the workers for which the workers are entitled, they do have a remedy to take appropriate steps under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. So far as the present reference is concerned, there remains nothing to be answered by the Tribunal.
15. Learned counsel for the intervenor has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of M/s Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited v/s Suresh Miscellaneous Petition No.2296/2019 8 Naryayan Singh (S.N. Singh) reported in 2010 SCC OnLine Jharkhand 748.
16. This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment. In the aforesaid case, there was an award passed under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, wherein it was held that the discharge of respondent workmen from the service of the appellant / Company was contrary to Section 33 as it was done without express permission in writing from the Labour Court where a dispute regarding validity of reversion of the workman was pending on the date of discharge. No such contingency is involved in the present case. In the present case, the reference in question was the only reference made to the Industrial Tribunal, which was required to be adjudicated. The reference was based upon a Business Transfer Agreement, which has come to an end, and therefore, the judgment relied upon is distinguishable on facts.
17. Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment delivered in the case of Sital Sukhiram v/s Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Wright Twon, Jabalpur & Others reported in 1968 SCC OnLine MP 51.
18. In the aforesaid case, the reference was made for adjudication by the Central Government and a settlement took place between the parties out of the Court and in those circumstances, as the settlement was made out of the Court, the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for Miscellaneous Petition No.2296/2019 9 determining the dispute in accordance with law. Again, the facts of the case are distinguishable, as there is no settlement of dispute outside the Court. The genesis of dispute itself has come to an end, meaning thereby, the Business Transfer Agreement transferring the units to respondent No.5 / Company has come to an end, and therefore, there cannot be any determination of the dispute as the agreement itself is not in existence. Hence, the judgment relied upon in again of no help.
19. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the Business Transfer Agreement has come to end, the exercise which the Tribunal is carrying on, is certainly a futile exercise as the reference itself has become infructuous.
20. Resultantly, the impugned orders dated 24.10.2018 and 04.04.2019 are hereby quashed in light of the fact that the reference itself has become infructuous.
With the aforesaid, the present Miscellaneous Petition stands allowed.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(S.C. SHARMA) (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ravi
Digitally signed by Ravi Prakash
Date: 2019.11.29 16:00:32 +05'30'