Case Note & Summary
The case involves two Letters Patent Appeals arising from a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.8099 of 2007. The appellant in LPA No.397 of 2008, M/s. Araine Orgachem Pvt. Ltd., and the appellant in LPA No.396 of 2008, M/s. Wyeth Limited, challenged the Single Judge's order which allowed the writ petition filed by the Wyeth Employees Union (Respondent No.1) and remanded Complaint (ULP) No.534 of 2004 to the Industrial Court for fresh decision. The background facts are that Wyeth Limited, a pharmaceutical company, had a manufacturing unit at Ghatkopar. On 25th June 2004, an agreement was entered into between Wyeth Limited and Araine Orgachem Pvt. Ltd. for the sale of Unit No.1 and Unit No.2 of the Ghatkopar unit. A deed of sale was executed on 30th August 2004, and on the same date, Araine Orgachem acquired the factory from Wyeth Limited. The Wyeth Employees Union filed a complaint before the Industrial Court alleging unfair labour practices, claiming that the transfer was a sham and that the workmen were entitled to continuity of service and benefits under Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint, holding that the transfer was genuine and that the workmen were not entitled to the relief sought. The Union then filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge, who set aside the Industrial Court's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Aggrieved by this, both Wyeth Limited and Araine Orgachem filed the present Letters Patent Appeals. The Division Bench, after hearing the parties, found that the learned Single Judge had erred in remanding the matter. The Court held that the Industrial Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and that the transfer was bona fide. The Court further held that the burden of proof was on the workmen to show that the conditions of Section 25FF were not satisfied, and they had failed to do so. The Division Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and restored the order of the Industrial Court dismissing the complaint. The appeals were allowed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Transfer of Undertaking - Section 25FF Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Continuity of Service - The issue was whether the transfer of the undertaking from Wyeth Limited to Araine Orgachem Pvt. Ltd. resulted in the workmen being entitled to continuity of service and benefits under Section 25FF. The Court held that the burden is on the workmen to establish that the conditions of Section 25FF are satisfied, and the mere fact of transfer does not automatically entitle them to continuity. The Industrial Court's finding that the transfer was a sham was based on insufficient evidence. (Paras 1-31) B) Industrial Law - Remand Order - Scope of Appellate Jurisdiction - The learned Single Judge's order remanding the matter to the Industrial Court was set aside as it was based on an erroneous appreciation of facts and law. The Division Bench held that the Industrial Court's order was perverse and not sustainable. (Paras 1-31) C) Industrial Law - Burden of Proof - Section 25FF Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The burden lies on the workmen to prove that the transfer of undertaking was not bona fide or that the conditions of Section 25FF were not met. The Court found that the workmen failed to discharge this burden. (Paras 1-31)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Single Judge was correct in remanding the matter to the Industrial Court for fresh consideration, and whether the transfer of undertaking under Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 entitles the workmen to continuity of service and benefits.
Final Decision
The Division Bench allowed both Letters Patent Appeals, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24th September 2008, and restored the order of the Industrial Court dismissing Complaint (ULP) No.534 of 2004.
Law Points
- Transfer of undertaking
- Section 25FF Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- continuity of service
- workmen's rights
- burden of proof
- remand order
- Letters Patent Appeal
