2011 (11) TMI 891
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....High Court at Calcutta in CPAN No. 539 of 2002 and MAT No. 519 of 2008 respectively whereby the High Court dismissed the contempt application and the appeal filed by the appellants herein - employees/workers of Philips India Ltd. 3) Brief facts: (a) The appellants are the employees/workers of Philips India Ltd. (in short 'the Company') having its Registered office at No. 7, Justice Chandra Madhab Road, Calcutta and its Consumer Electronics Factory at Salt Lake City, Calcutta. In the year 1997, the Company introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme (in short "VRS") for its workmen and majority of them opted for and accepted the same. On 30.09.1998, the Company entered into an Agreement for Sale of its Consumer Electronics Factory at Salt Lak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led SLP (C) No. 14274 of 1999 before this Court which was dismissed by this Court on 15.10.1999. Against the same, Review Petition No. 1585 of 1999 was filed which was also dismissed. (c) On 22.12.1999, both the Company and Kitchen Appliances India Ltd. issued a notice informing the employees that consequent upon transfer of ownership of the Consumer Electronics Factory, the employment of all the workmen has been taken over by the Kitchen Appliances India Ltd with immediate effect and their services will be treated as continuous and not interrupted by the transfer of ownership and the terms and conditions of services will not be in any way less favourable than those applicable immediately prior to the transfer of ownership. Workers' Union....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2008. On 21.07.2008, the workers filed MAT No. 519 of 2008 before the Division Bench of the High Court which was also dismissed vide order dated 25.08.2008. (e) Being aggrieved, the Workers' Unions have filed these appeals before this Court by way of special leave petitions. 4) Heard Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel for the appellants-workers and Mr. Jay Savla, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 -Management. 5) The point for consideration in these appeals is whether the workmen are entitled to the benefit of the order dated 08.10.2001 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court, particularly, in the absence of any appeal or challenge before the higher forum by the Management? 6) It is the specific case of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for payment of retirement and retrenchment benefits to the workers. Inasmuch as the workers very much relied on the order of the learned single Judge dated 08.10.2001, it is useful to refer to the directions made therein. While declining to interfere with the order of rejection made for reference, the learned single Judge of the High Court issued the following directions: "However, the petitioners shall be entitled to all retirement benefits with effect from the date of approval of the undertaking to Kitchen Appliances Ltd. and Philips India Limited shall pay all such retirement benefits payable to the employees within six months from this date. Such benefits will be given as per normal Rules and conditions of service including the retre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion to the Management as well as to the officers of the Labour Department for consultation and consideration and finally to the Government for referring the matter to the Labour Court/Tribunal for adjudication. After several attempts, these workmen filed Writ Petition before the High Court. The learned single Judge of the High Court has taken note of proposal for transfer between Philips India Ltd. and Workers' Union and all other subsequent events including the fact that the Company launched VRS to its employees who did not opt to Kitchen Appliances India Ltd. After noting that the dispute was sought to be raised but the appropriate government declined to refer the same, the learned single Judge, after considering the rival contentions of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n various forums such as Civil Court, Labour Court, the Government and the High Court and even in this Court, we are of the view that the learned single Judge was fully justified in passing such order. 11) A perusal of the directions passed by the learned single Judge leaves no room for doubt that a mandatory duty was cast upon respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to comply with the same. In such circumstances, it is highly improper on the part of the Management now to turn around and to contend that since the appellants-workmen had neither been retired nor resigned nor retrenched from service, as such, there is no question of any payment or to comply with the directions passed by the learned single Judge. 12) The entire genesis of the contempt applicat....