Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"Whether the retrenchment of S/Sh. Deepak Som...(names of 57 workmen are stated) is legal and justified and, if not, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

On receipt of reference the Labour Court issued notice to the parties. A joint statement of claim was preferred by the workmen through the aforementioned Union on November 21, 1983. Written statement thereto was submitted by the management on April 27, 1984. The workmen filed rejoinder to the written statement on April 20, 1984. The workmen in their joint claim alleged that M/s. Parle Exports Private Ltd.(for short 'Parle') opened a factory at 60, Shivaji Marg, Moti Nagar, New Delhi for the manufacture and marketing of their special brand of aerated waters, viz., Gold Spot, Rim Zim, Soda etc. some time in 1965, In 1966 Parle organized M/s. Delhi Bottling Co. P. Ltd. and transferred the business, i.e., manufacture and sale of their products in Northern India to the Delhi Bottling Co. P. Ltd., which had four departments, namely, production sales, publicity and garage. Delhi Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. appointed M/s. Vijay Anand Associates Pvt. Ltd. as their agents for publicity, garage, carpentry and sales from April 1, 1973 to June 1, 1974 and transferred employees in these departments to the said agency and continuity of services with protection of length of their service. Agency was later taken over over by Olrite Agency Pvt. Ltd. in 1974 and thereafter by JorBagh Distributors Pvt.Ltd., which later on was taken over by D.K. Agencies and again it reverted back to Jor Bagh Distributors Pvt.Ltd. (The Management).

3. It was alleged that the Management is an agency of Delhi Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. The license for manufacturing and marketing of aerated products of Parle in the Union Territory and other parts of Northern India was with the Delhi Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. and not with the Management. The Industry, as such is the Delhi Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. and the Parle Exports Pvt. Ltd. It was employing 373 workmen in 1982 and was an establishment covered by the provisions of Chapter V-B of Act. President of the employees Union had served a demand notice dated December 7, 1982 on the Management, protesting against illegal lock out and requesting the Management to allow the workmen to resume duty. Matter was referred to the Conciliation Officer for his intervention, under Section 12 of the Act, with a request to issue prohibitory orders under Section 10(3) with the reference of dispute over the bonus for the year 1982. Along with the claim statement, a letter of espousal and letter of authority signed by 95 workmen employed by the Management was filed with the Conciliation Officer.

10. It was also alleged that statement of claim having not been signed and verified by the workmen concerned, in accordance with mandatory provisions of law, same cannot be considered or looked at. On merits, the Management denied that M/s. Parle Export P. Ltd., manages the entire affairs or that the Management was an agency of Delhi Bottling Co. P. Ltd. It was alleged that Management is an independent limited company, having an independent management to manage its affairs. The management also denied that the workmen were the members of the Union. It was also alleged that the same very workmen had been, on many occasions, negotiating with the management and raising their demands through another union styled as General Mazdoor Congress and, thus, it was alleged that the Union had no locus standi to espouse the present case on behalf of the workmen. It was alleged that the Management was employing only 220 workmen, during the relevant time, which was less than 300 workmen and as such the provisions of Chapter V-B of the Act were not attracted. The Management denied that the retrenchment in respect of 57 workmen was covered by Item 11 of Schedule - IV. Management also denied that the provisions of Section 9-A of the Act were applicable. No notice, according to it was required to be given, in case of retrenchment effected, after complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.