Bombay High Court
Apex Marketing Federation Employees ... vs S.A. Patil And Ors. on 8 December, 1987
Equivalent citations: (1995)IIILLJ81BOM
JUDGMENT Kurdukar, J.
1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order, dated 30th October 987, dismissing the Complaint (ULP) No. 1198 of 1986 filed by the petitioners. This complaint was filed complaining unfair labour practice under Items 3 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
2. The learned Member of the Industrial Court has given cogent and satisfactory reasons while dismissing the complaint and I am in agreement with the reasons set out in the said order.
3. Perused the affidavits filed by the parties in the proceedings.
4. Dr. Kulkarni, the learned Counsel appearing in support of this petition firstly urged that there is no final decision as yet taken by the Government to shift the head office of the Second Respondent from Bombay to Nagpur. He urged that although Minister for Co-operation made a statement on the floor of the Assembly on 26th November 1986. yet, the Government appointed a high level committee thereafter and the said Committee submitted its report sometime in April 1987. From the said report Dr. Kulkarni drew my attention to Item 120 which is annexed to the petition at page 45. The report states : "The Committee further feels that giving the weightage to the strategic location of Bombay from the point of view of sales, resource mobilisation, communication, co-ordination with the concerned authorities and public relation, the head office of the Federation should necessarily be retained at Bombay.
According to Dr. Kulkarni, this report clearly indicates that the Committee has recommended that the head office of the Federation should not be shifted from Bombay to Nagpur. Mr. Savant, learned Counsel for the Federation, drew my attention to the entire report and in particular pointed out to me the terms of reference. He urged that the terms of reference do not include an item as regards shifting of Head Office from Bombay to Nagpur. I have myself perused the terms of reference and I am satisfied that this item was not the subject-matter of reference. The observations of the Committee relied upon by Dr. Kulkarni are besides the terms of reference. In addition, Narahar Krishna Kulkarni, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, has filed the return and in paragraph 2 it has been stated;
"Keeping all these factors in mind during the course of discussion on the cotton monopoly scheme in Assembly, the Minister for Co-operation, announced the decision of the Government on 26-11-1986 that the Head Office of the Respondent No. 2 will be shifted to Nagpur from 1st January 1987. I say that accordingly excepting a few Departments, the Respondent No. 2 was asked to shift the other Departments under Government Letter dated 13th March, 1987. In the meanwhile, on the basis of the aforesaid information, the above referred Complaint was filed in the Industrial Court initially leading to an ad-interim injunction".
The Federation has also filed the Return and they have reaffirmed that the Government has taken decision and accordingly directed them to shift the Head Office from Bombay to Nagpur. Upon reading two Returns filed on behalf of the Respondents, I am of the opinion that the Government has adhered to the statement made by the Minister for Co-operation on 26th November 1986 on the floor of the Assembly that Head Office of the Federation will be shifted from Bombay to Nagpur. 1 see no reason to doubt the returns filed on behalf of the Respondents. The Industrial Court was, therefore, right in holding that the Government has decided to shift the Head Office of the Federation from Bombay to Nagpur in accordance with the statement made by the Minister for Co-operation on 26th November, 1986.
5. Dr. Kulkarni then urged that the decision taken by the Government is in total violation of the agreement or settlement between the petitioners on the one hand and the Second Respondents and the State Government on the other. In particular, he drew my attention to Item (ii) of the agreement which reads thus:
"The clerical staff working in the three regions would be transferred only within the area of their respective regions. The clerical staff working in Bombay and Thane would not be transferred outside except on promotion or by way of punishment". Relying upon this, Dr. Kulkarni urged that so long as agreement stands, the Respondents have no right to issue any directions inconsistent with the agreement . Such direction, if issued, is illegal and void. This agreement must override any unilateral decision taken by the Respondents. In support of this submission, Dr. Kulkarni relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Kamani Tubes Ltd. v. Kamani Employees Union and Ors. 1987 Current Labour Reports (October Issue) 263. I have gone through the judgment and in my opinion, the ratio laid down therein is wholly inapplicable inasmuch as the reported judgment is clearly distinguishable. Dr. Kulkarni also drew my attention to other judgments, viz., (i) Apar Pvt. Ltd. v. S.R. Samant 1980 (2) LLJ 344, and (ii) unreported judgment in Writ Petition No. 5364 of 1986 Apex Marketing Federation Employees Union v. The Ma-harashtra State Co-operative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation Limited dated 18th November 1987 by Dharmad-hikari and Puranik, JJ. Both these judgments are again on different issues and law laid down therein does not apply to the present case. There is nothing in the settlement/agreement which prohibits the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from shifting the Head Office. The Government has got power and in exercise of the said power, the Government has decided to shift the Head Office. In my opinion, the agreement does not take away the right of the Government to shift the Head Office. There is thus no substance in the contention raised by Dr. Kulkarni.
6. Lastly Dr. Kulkarni drew my attention to the letter dated 13th March 1987 Ex.5 at page 68. According to Dr. Kulkarni,'this letter again indicates that the Government has not yet taken final decision to shift the Head Office. Although a statement was made by the Minister for Co-operation on 26th November 1986 in regard to the shifting of Head Office from Bombay to Nagpur but still the said decision is under consideration. This submission does not appeal to me since return filed on behalf of the State Government clearly indicates that Government has taken a decision to shift the Head Office from Bombay to Nagpur and Government does not want to rescind the said statement made by the Minister for Co-operation on the floor of the Assembly on 26th November 1986.
7. These are the only three contentions raised before me by Dr. Kulkarni. In view of my foregoing conclusions, the writ petition has no substance and the same is summarily rejected. On the application of Dr. Kulkarni, status quo as of today to continue for a period of two weeks. Petitioners undertake to give 48 hours' notice to the Respondents before they move the Supreme Court for any interim order.