Dismissed

Vijay Dnyanoba Natak and Ors. v. Ace Glass Containers Limited (Formerly Known as Owen Brockway (India) Limited) and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Aug 2009LPA/199/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Letters Patent Appeal against a Single Judge's judgment was dismissed. The Court held that the appellants had no merit in their contention regarding the non-existence of a termination clause and distinguished the case from NTC's case due to the statutory nature of that precedent versus private contract. Service termination is deeming provision under Section 25 FF.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vijay Dnyanoba Natak and Ors. Vs Ace Glass… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.199 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5306 OF 2006

¶3

Shri Vijay Dnyanoba Natak & Ors. .. Appellants Vs ACE Glass Containers Limited & Anr. .. Respondents

¶4

Shri Nitin A. Kulkarni for the Appellnats. Shri D.J. Bhanage for the Respondents.

¶5

CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A.M. KHANWILKAR, J DATED : 26TH AUGUST, 2009

¶6

P.C.

¶7

The present appeal is directed against the judgment of

¶8

the learned Single Judge dated 22^nd July, 2007. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has argued that the learned Single Judge has neither noticed nor dealt with the contentions raised by the appellants that the agreement dated 21^st December, 2001 did not contain any clause which empowers the transferee Company to terminate the services of the Appellants and he relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in N.T.C. (South

¶9

¶10

Maharashtra) Ltd. & Ors. Etc. v. Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh & Ors. Etc., 1993 I CLR 602.

¶11

Vide agreement dated 21^st December, 2001, the ACI India LLC has transferred its shares in favour of the Respondent Company. Admittedly, the contract did not contain any clause as regards the shares to the transferee Company. As far as the contention of the Respondents is concerned that the agreement was sham was rejected and the complaint filed by the complainants was also rejected by an order dated 14^th February, 2006 passed by the Industrial Court, Pune. In that order, all contentions raised were dealt with by giving proper reasons. It is not even the case before us that the workmen’s case is covered under the proviso to Section 25 FF and they do not fall in any of the categories stated therein. As far as the contention raised before us is concerned, it is also without any merit inasmuch as the decision in NTC’s case (supra) is of hardly any help to the Appellants inasmuch as that was the case for statutory transfer and rights of the applicant-company were controlled by the duly enacted law and not by a private contract. Furthermore, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is that the

¶12

¶13

service would stand terminated upon compliance of Section 25FF of the Act as per the deeming provision.

¶14

We find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is devoid of merit. We accordingly dismiss the Letters Patent Appeal.

¶15

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶16

A.M. KHANWILKAR, J

Vijay Dnyanoba Natak and Ors. v. Ace Glass Containers Limited (Formerly Known as Owen Brockway (India) Limited) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vijay Dnyanoba Natak and Ors. v. Ace Glass Containers Limited (Formerly Known as Owen Brockway (India) Limited) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarika Machindra Nalwade @ Sarika Ambadas Pawar Vs the Chairman, Vidyarthi Hitwardhak Mandal and 3 Ors.

Rafique Abdul Sattar Sayyed and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 8 Ors.

Mahalingam R. Devendra and 34 Ors. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Brihanmumbai and 7 Ors.

Maruti Valkya Jitekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S.Ghaisas and Company Vs Smt.Rohini Chandrakant Tambwalkar

Ravindra Babajirao Salunkhe Vs Vijay Lalji Yadav and Others