The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an Industrial Court order rejecting a stay stay application on a transfer. The court upheld the Industrial Court's prima facie finding that the company had an establishment at Nagpur.
Writ Petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
903 wp 1678-20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1678 OF 2020
Sagar Chavan
….. Petitioner.
vs
Navabharat Press Ltd & Anr.….. Respondents.
Jane Cox a/w Karishma Rao for the Petitioner.
Santosh Shetty for the Respondents.
CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J.
DATED: FEBRUARY 20, 2020
P.C. :
This Writ Petition challenges an interim order passed by
the Industrial Court at Thane under Section 30(2) of the MRTU and
PULP Act, 1971 in a complaint filed by the Petitioner herein.
2.The case of the Complainant was that he was in the
employment of the Respondent-Navbharat Press Limited as Assistant
Printer. It was submitted that he was participating in union activities
and was in fact a leading activist and Executive Committee member
of the employees’ union. The union was involved in a dispute
concerning implementation of Majithia Award in the Respondent-
company, which dispute resulted into a reference. It was submitted
that as a result of his participation in union activities and in
particular in connection with the reference, the Respondent-
Laxmi Pg 1 of 4
903 wp 1678-20.odt
company victimized the Petitioner and transferred him to Nagpur. It
was submitted that the Respondent-company had no establishment
at Nagpur. The Petitioner, accordingly, challenged his transfer
before the Industrial Court in a complaint of unfair labour practice.
He took out an interim application in the complaint seeking to stay
his transfer. The interim application was rejected by the Industrial
Court and the parties were directed to co-operate with each other
for expeditious decision of the complaint itself. This order is the
subject matter of challenge in the present petition.
3.The Industrial Court, whilst passing its impugned order,
has considered that though there were indications in its written
statement in the reference that the Respondent-company printed
and published Navabharat Times Mumbai edition, Pune edition and
Nashik editions, it did not have any establishment in Nagpur; the
Nagpur edition of Navabharat Times was printed by Navabharat
Press, Nagpur, which was a partnership firm registered under the
Indian Partnership Act, 1932, the stand taken by the Respondent-
establishment in the present complaint clearly implied that it not
only had an establishment in Mumbai but even at Nagpur, Raipur
and Bilaspur. These addresses were shown even on the letter-head
of the Respondent. The Court also noted that the letter of
appointment issued to the Petitioner, which was on this letter-head,
also gave Nagpur as one of the places of the establishment, and
made the services transferable at any place (meaning thereby, the
Pg 2 of 4
Laxmi
903 wp 1678-20.odt
possibility of a transfer at Nagpur). This material, according to the
Industrial Court, prima facie showed that the Respondent-company
had an establishment at Nagpur, to which the complainant-
employee could be transferred.
4.No fault can be found with this assessment of the
Industrial Court. It is, after all, a prima facie assessment, and is
supported by some material on record; it cannot be said that it is
either based on no evidence or is an impossible or unreasonable
view; it does take into account all germane and relevant materials
and circumstances; and it does not consider any irrelevant or non-
germane material or circumstance.
5.So far as the purported contradictions between the
Respondent’s stand before the reference court and the Industrial
Court in the present complaint are concerned, the Industrial Court
has rightly noted that though the Respondent could not possibly
justify why two different stands were taken in the reference court
and before the Industrial Court in the present complaint, that itself
would not justify the submission of the complainant that the
Respondent had no establishment at Nagpur where he could be
transferred. The Court noted that at the most, the contention made
by the Respondent-company in its written statement could be used
by the employees in the pending reference before the Labour Court;
it, however, did not prima facie justify the conclusion that the
Respondent had no establishment at Nagpur.
Laxmi Pg 3 of 4
903 wp 1678-20.odt
6.Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that there is
a clear case of estoppel here, since the Respondent had already
taken a stand, as a prior contention, before the reference court that
the establishment of Nagpur was different from the establishment at
Mumbai where the Petitioner worked. If there are contradictory
stands, the Court would take a view on these stands and accept or
reject any particular stand at the final hearing of the complaint as
also at the hearing of the reference. At this prima facie stage, this
itself was not sufficient for the Court to come to a conclusion one
way or the other and, at any rate, as noted above, there can be no
perversity ascribed to the view taken by the Industrial Court in the
present case.
7.Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition. The Writ
Petition is, in the premises, dismissed.
Laxmi Pg 4 of 4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Industrial Court committed error in assessing prima facie that the Respondent had an establishment at Nagpur permitting transfer of the petitioner.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sagar Chavan
Navabharat Press Ltd & Anr.
S.C. GUPTE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court