Dismissed

The Associated Cement Staff Union. v. Acc Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Jan 2008LPA/113/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Associated Cement Staff Union challenging the Single Judge's order restraining retrenchment of employees due to technology implementation. The Court held no error of law was committed as the management gave an unequivocal assurance against retrenchment, deeming apprehension groundless at that stage.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed. Civil Application No.442 of 2007 disposed of as it does not survive disposal of the appeal.

The Associated Cement Staff Union. Vs Acc Ltd. and Anr. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.113 OF 2007
 WITH
 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.442 OF 2007

¶4

IN

¶5

WRITPETITION NO.1287 OF 2007

¶6

 The Associated Cement Staff Union ..Appellant.

¶7

 V/s.

¶8

 ACC Ltd. & Anr. ..Respondents.

¶9

 Mr.P.M.Patel for appellant.

¶10

 Mr.J.P.Cama, senior counsel with Bharat Goyal and Mrs,
 Sarika Deshpande i/b. Haresh Mehta & Co.for
 respondents.

¶11

CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, J.

¶12

DATED : 23RD JANUARY, 2008.

¶13

P.C. :-

¶14

 1. In Writ Petition No.1287 of 2007, learned

¶15

 Single Judge made the Rule absolute and passed the
 following order:-

¶16

 i) The impugned order passed by the Industrial
 Court is quashed and set aside.

¶17

 ii) The petitioner is restrained from effecting
 retrenchment of any employee on the ground that
 they are rendered excess on introducing /
 implementing the SAP Technology.

¶18

 iii) The petitioner shall also not redeploy or
 transfer the employees without prior permission

¶19

 - = : 2 : = -

¶20

 of the Industrial court and it shall not
 redeploy / transfer any employees contrary to
 the terms of employment.

¶21

 iv) The Industrial court in the facts of the
 present case shall proceed to decide the
 complaint as expeditiously as possible and
 preferably within a period of six months from
 today.

¶22

 Rule made absolute accordingly.

¶23

 2. Aggrieved by the above order, the workmen

¶24

 have filed the present Appeal. Learned counsel

¶25

 appearing for the appellant while relying upon the
 Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Hindustan
Liver Ltd. V/s. Hindustan Lever Employees Union &

¶26

Anr. reported in 2006 (91) CLR 543 contended that it

¶27

 is not necessary that in the process of rationalisation
 there should be actual retrenchment or surplus staff,
 but it is sufficient if such act of rationalisation is
 likely to lead to the retrenchment for being covered
 under Item 10 of the fourth Schedule. The happening of
 the event is irrelevant. On the contrary, learned
 counsel appearing for the respondents brought to the
 notice of the Court that they have already filed the
 affidavit before the Industrial Tribunal stating that
 they have not and they would not retrench any employee
 as a result of the implementation of the SAP technology

¶28

 for betterment of business. During the course of
 arguments before us, it was further stated that said
 scheme has already been implemented and no worker has

¶29

 - = : 3 : = -

¶30

 been retrenched. Reliance was placed upon the Judgment
 of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Lever
Ltd. V/s. Ram Mohan Ray and others reported in A.I.R.
1973 Supreme Court, 1156 to justify the said situation
 that where such a statement is made before the Court,
 workmen cannot raise the grievance on an apprehension
 that they are likely to be retrenched.

¶31

 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶32

 parties and on perusal of the order impugned in the
 present appeal, we are of the considered view that
 there are no errors of law in the order challenged
 before us. Learned Single Judge has sufficiently
 protected the interest of the parties, inasmuch as,
 directions have been given that the workmen would not
 be transferred or redeployed without the leave of the
 Tribunal. Furthermore, the complaints before the
 Tribunal have been ordered to be decided expeditiously.
 Once there is an unequivocal statement made on behalf
 of the Management that they have not retrenched any
 worker and they fully stand by that statement, there is
 hardly any occasion for this Court to presume that
 there is an apprehension of retrenchment at this stage
 of the proceedings. The proceeding before the
 Industrial Tribunal have not been concluded as yet and
 is pending. We see no reason to interfere in the order
 impugned in the appeal.

¶33

 - = : 4 : = -

¶34

 4. Appeal is dismissed with no order as to

¶35

 costs.

¶36

 5. In view of the disposal of the appeal, the
 Civil Application No.442 of 2007 does not survive and
 disposed of as such.

¶37

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶38

J.P.DEVADHAR, J.

The Associated Cement Staff Union. v. Acc Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Associated Cement Staff Union. v. Acc Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Genu Bhivaji Rao Vs 1.THE Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr.

Vitthal Ramchandra Deore Vs Siddharth Nagar Co-Op. Hos. Soc. Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Ms Priyanka Kambli and Anr. Vs Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika and 4 Ors.

Sheetal Ashok Panwalkar @ Pushpa Kamble Vs South Indian Childrens Education Society and Ors.

Sheetal Ashok Panwalkar @ Pushpa Kamble Vs South Indian Childrens Education Society and Ors.

The Mumbai Diamond Merchants Association Vs Vijay Devshanar Dave