Hindustan Lever Employees Union and Another v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.

Bombay HC31 Aug 2010CHSW/115/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This chamber summons was taken out by employees (applicants/interveners) seeking to be joined to a writ petition challenging an industrial award. The court ordered that their affidavit be treated as filed in the main writ petition and granted them an opportunity to be heard during its final disposal.

What did the court decide?

Affidavit of applicants treated as filed in main writ petition; applicants to be heard at final disposal.

Hindustan Lever Employees Union and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

jmi

¶4

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 114 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 299 OF 2009.

¶5

Hindustan Lever Employees Union & Anr. ..Petitioners. v/s. Hindustan Unilver Ltd. ..Respondent. And P.B. Pandey & Ors. ..Applicants/ Interveners.

¶6

WITH

¶7

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 115 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 299 OF 2009.

¶8

Hindustan Lever Employees Union & Anr. ..Petitioners. v/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. ..Respondent. And Hindustan Unilever Employees Union & Ors. ..Applicants/ Interveners.

¶9

Mr. P.K. Rele, Senior Counsel, with Mr. R.N. Shah, a/w. Mr. M.S. Londhe, i/b. Sanjay Udeshi & Co., for Petitioners. Mr. S.K. Talsania, Senior Advocate, i/b. Ghanashyam Tripathi, for Applicants/Interveners.

¶10

Ms. Meena Doshi & Bennet D’Costa, for Respondent.

¶11

CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 31ST AUGUST 2010.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

The above Chamber Summons are taken out by the Applicants/Interveners who are the employees of the Petitioners

¶14

¶15

Company inter-alia for being impleaded as Respondent to the above Writ Petition.

¶16

The Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioners inter-alia challenging the impugned common Award dated 12th August 2008 passed by the Industrial Court in Reference IT No. 83 of 1997, Reference IT No.51/1998, Reference IT No. 56 of 1999 and Reference IT No. 21 of 2001.

¶17

The above Writ Petition was admitted on 4th May 2009. Thereafter, the Petitioner No.1 entered into a Memorandum of Settlement on 7^th October 2009 with the Respondent and settled the dispute in the above Writ Petition in regard to the workmen of the Sewree factory. The Petitioner No.1 and the Respondent filed the consent terms before this Court on 24^th November 2009.

¶18

It is submitted on behalf of the Applicants that total 33 employees are employed at the Head Office / training centre of the Respondent. All the employees of the Respondent at Head Office/training centre were willing for an overall settlement with respect to their several demands and disputes including the dispute involved in the above Writ Petition. All the employees working at Head Office resigned from the Petitioner No.1-Union. Out of 33 employees, 25 employees formed a new Union and registered the same under the Trade Unions Act of 1926 with the Registrar of Trade

¶19

¶20

Union. Thereafter, the Hindustan Unilever Employees Union entered into a Memorandum of Settlement on 31st January 2010 with the Respondent herein. It was agreed between the Respondent and the Applicants that the Award dated 12th August 2008 will be replaced by the said settlement dated 31st January 2010 as far as it relates to the employees at the Head Office of the Respondent.

¶21

It is submitted that the Applicants have accepted the terms, conditions and benefits of the said settlement dated 31st January 2010 in totality. It is further submitted that in view thereof, it is necessary that the Award dated 12th August 2008 be substituted and replaced by the Settlement dated 31st January 2010 qua the Head Office of the Respondent. It is therefore, submitted on behalf of the Applicants that the Chamber Summons be allowed and the relief claimed therein be granted, otherwise, grave loss, harm and prejudice will be caused to the Applicants.

¶22

After hearing the Advocates for the parties, I am of the view that the Applicants are not required to be joined as parties to the Writ Petition and their purpose would be served if they are allowed to file an affidavit in the above Writ Petition setting out their case and also heard at the time of final disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶23

Mr. Talsania submits that in that event, the affidavit in

¶24

¶25

support of the Chamber Summons be taken on record as an affidavit filed in the above Writ Petition by the Applicants and they be permitted to make their submissions when the above Writ Petition is finally heard and disposed of.

¶26

The Respondent too have no objection if such an order is passed. In view thereof, the following order is passed :-

¶27

(i) The affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons

¶28

filed by the Applicants be treated as affidavit of the Applicants filed in the above Writ Petition.

¶29

(ii) The Applicants shall be heard at the time of the hearing and final disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶30

(iii) The Respondent may file its response to the affidavit

¶31

of the Applicants within a period of four weeks from the date of this order.

¶32

Both the Chamber Summons are accordingly, disposed

¶33

of.

¶34

[ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]

Hindustan Lever Employees Union and Another v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hindustan Lever Employees Union and Another v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shankarlal Vpaji Malviya Vs Shashmal M. Parkar. Proprietor of M/S. Sunithasa Enterprise and 4 Ors.

Ravindra D. Punwani Vs M/S. Garware Offshore Services Ltd.

M/S. Klirak Sh. P. K. Vs M/S. a VI Shipping Pvt. Ltd.

Shyamlal Shrivastav Vs Adam Exports

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs Hindustan Lever Research Centre Employees Union

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs Hindustan Lever Employees Union and Another