KAMAT PRINTERS KAMGAR Vs. KAMAT PRINTERS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The argument of the appellant is that allowing of shifting the machines would inevitably result in rendering the members of the appellant, presently working in unit No. 2, as surplus and will be retrenched from services on that count. In that situation, section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is clearly attracted, as the respondents cannot effect any change in the conditions of service of the employees working in Unit No. 2.

(3.) It is not in dispute that Unit No. 2 is not treated as a separate establishment. It is under the same employer. It is also not in dispute that the members of the Appellant, though working in one Unit, could be transferred in another Unit for administrative reasons. In other words, they could be interchanged inter se two Units at any point of time. Indeed, if the respondents were to remove the plant and machinery in Unit No. 2, there will be absolutely no activity in the said unit but, that by itself does not mean that the members of the appellant were likely to be retrenched from services or for that matter, the number of workmen presently working with the respondents in Unit Nos. 1 and 2 would be reduced in any manner. No such case has been pleaded, either in the complaint or in any of the affidavits, which position is fairly accepted by the Counsel appearing for the appellant. It is only if the appellant was to allege and assert that the effect of removal of machinery would lead to retrenchment of the members of the appellant or that, it would result in increase or reduction of the number of persons employed by the respondents in the two Units put together, the question of change of service conditions would arise. As aforesaid, no such case has been made out in the complaint or the affidavits filed before the Industrial Court. As long as, the respondents continues to employ the members of the appellant union, who are presently working and coupled with the fact that the Industrial Court has already inducted the respondents from retrenching or terminating the services of the members of the appellant, we fail to understand as to how the decision of the Industrial Court, allowing the respondents to take away the machinery of Unit No. 2, can be faulted. In our opinion, no interference is warranted, as no manifest injustice has been caused to the appellant on account of the dismissal of the Writ Petition. Hence, dismissed. In view of dismissal of the appeal, the Civil Application is also disposed of.