Dilip Kumar Seth, J. - (1.) A reference was made with regard to the dispute between the workers of Asiatic Oxygen Limited (hereinafter referred to as "AOL") and the Asiatic Oxygen Limited on June 2, 1999, and the issues were whether the lock-out declared by the management of AOL in their Kona works with effect from September 25,1998, is justified What relief, if any, are the workmen thereof entitled to and whether the subsequent closure of unit with effect from November 6, 1998, by the management is real What relief are the workmen entitled to On the allegation made through the application by the workmen, the petitioner Praxair India Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Praxair") was added as party by an order dated April 9, 2001. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioner.
(2.) Mr. Arunabha Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the reference is between the workers of AOL and the management of AOL having relationship of employer and employee between themselves. Praxair is not the employer of the workmen involved in the reference. There was no relationship of employer and employee between them. The alleged transfer of business or shares does not include transfer of employees. On the other hand, according to him, it was not a transfer but an arrangement of product purchase scheme, that too in respect of a particular product. He has also pointed out to a letter dated January 30, 1998, where AOL had made it clear that the work will continue by the AOL and it was only the agreement for sale of its entire product. According to him, the petitioner is not a necessary party and the award passed against AOL could not be binding on the petitioner. As such the order should be set aside. He had referred to the decision in Glaxo India Ltd. v. Chemical Employees' Union, 1998 (80) FLR 1 , in support of his contention. He has also relied on a decision of this court in Parry's (Calcutta) Employees' Union v. Judge, Second Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, Calcutta, 1997 (77) FLR 421 (Cal) .
(3.) Learned counsel for AOL, Mr. Dipak Kumar Ghosh adopted the submission of Mr. Arunabha Ghosh and supported him. Mrs. Gita Mukherjee, appearing on behalf of the union submits that in fact the business and management of AOL has been taken over by the petitioner, which is apparent from a letter dated April 16, 1998, (at page 17) that the business of sales, distribution and marketing of industrial gases of Asiatic Oxygen Limited (AOL) has been taken over by Praxair with effect from April 16,1998. Therefore, according to her Praxair has stepped into the shoes of AOL and therefore, without them, no valid relief could be granted in the dispute. Therefore, the order is justified.;