The Management v. The General Secretary

High Court, Bombay. Therefore, the 1^stpetitioner is no longer a legal entity and the 2^ndpetitioner which is the proper and necessary party to challenge the impugned Award of the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai dated 04.09.2018 in I.D. No.301 of 2011.

3.The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners made a submission that the erstwhile management of Prakash Air Freight Pvt Ltd was involved in the business of collection, dispatch and delivery of documents and small sized parcels. The workmen who were the members of the respondent Union were initially appointed by the Prakash Air Freight Pvt Ltd. Temporary appointment letters were issued to the workmen and terms of the appointment were also stated. Pursuant to the appointment order, the workmen were working with the Prakash Air Freight Pvt Ltd. with the consent of the workmen, the petitioner Company transferred the employment of these workmen to one M/s.VEEJAY Associates. Accordingly, the said M/s.VEEJAY Associates issued fixed term contract employment to the workmen transferred from Prakash Air Freight Pvt Ltd.

3/8

Accordingly, the workmen were allowed to serve with M/s.VEEJAY Associates in accordance with the terms and conditions of contract employment and thereafter, they raised a dispute, mainly on the ground that they have not given any specific consent for transfer of employer, but they were deputed to M/s.VEEJAY Associates forcibly by their own original employer viz., Prakash Air Freight Pvt Ltd. The workmen did not accept the transfer of employer and the reference was made by the Government in this regard and consequently, the issues were adjudicated by the learned II Additional Labour Court, Chennai. The Award was passed in favour of the workmen holding that they have not given any consent for transfer of employer and therefore, the original employer viz.,Prakash Air Freight Pvt Ltd shall be the employer of the respondent workmen. 4.The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the findings of the Labour Court is perverse with reference to the issues raised before the Labour Court. The workmen had given consent by accepting the contract employment letter issued by M/s.VEEJAY

4/8

Associates and such a consent was not taken into consideration by the Labour Court while, adjudicating the issues. Thus, the findings of the Labour Court is perverse and untenable.

5.The learned counsel for the respondent Union objected the said contention by stating that a specific letter of consent is mandatory while transferring the employee. The workmen at no circumstances consented for transfer of employer and they have given consent only to work on deputation with M/s.VEEJAY Associates and such a deputation was temporary in nature and thus, there is no infirmity in respect of the findings of the Labour Court on its Award. During the course of arguments, the responsibility of M/s.VEEJAY Associates was not adjudicated by the Labour Court and such an adjudication is eminent for the purpose of ascertaining the rights of the employer, since the workmen lastly served with M/s.VEEJAY Associates. On transfer of employment from Prakash Air Freight Pvt Ltd to M/s.VEEJAY Associates, the petitioners have accepted the contract employment as per the letter dated 01.06.2007 and served with

5/8

M/s.VEEJAY Associates for a considerable length of time. Therefore, the responsibility of M/s.VEEJAY Associates towards the workmen is also to be decided for the purpose of adjudicating the disputed issues. However, the said M/s.VEEJAY Associates has not been impleaded as party before the Labour Court. In the absence of impleading the said M/s.VEEJAY Associates, the adjudication cannot be completed and the rights of workmen cannot be determined. In view of the facts and circumstances, it is necessary to remand the matter back for effective and complete adjudication of issues by ascertaining the rights of the workmen with reference to their employment with M/s.VEEJAY Associates as well as the other Company. Accordingly, the Award impugned dated 04.09.2018 passed in I.D.No.301 of 2011 on the file of the learned II Additional Labour Court, Chennai is quashed and the matter is remanded back for fresh adjudication. The parties are at liberty to implead the all necessary parties including the said M/s.VEEJAY Associates and submit further documents or evidence, as the case may be, if required. The Labour Court concerned is directed to adjudicate the issues fresh on merits and in accordance with law and by

6/8

affording an opportunity to all the parties as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six moths from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6.With this direction, this Writ petition stands allowed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

02.11.2022

Index : Yes Internet : Yes Speaking order : Yes ssr

7/8

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

ssr

and W.M.P.No.36802 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.36377 & 36383 of 2019

02.11.2022

8/8