bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 157 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 157 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 157 OF 2008 ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1907 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 1907 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 1907 OF 2008 IN IN IN WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 5800 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 5800 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 5800 OF 2007 Shri P.T.Manjrekar ... Applicant v/s 1. M/s.Punjab State Container and Warehousing Corporation 2. Gateways Distriparks Ltd. ... Respondents Applicant in person. Mr.K.S.Bapat for the respondent No.1. Mr.Ratnakar Pai with Mrs.Anila Acharya for Resp.No.2. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 8TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 8TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 8TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The civil applications have been filed by the applicant claiming wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act at the rate of Rs.10,350/- per month. The petition has been admitted on 28.8.2007 and interim relief was granted. It appears that, back wages have been deposited by the petitioner as directed by this Court while passing the interim orders. 2 2. The petitioner sought an amendment to the petition as all the operations in Mumbai had been transferred for a period of 15 years to M/s.Gateway Distriparks Ltd., which has now been added as respondent No.2. The petitioner is willing to reinstate respondent No.1 workmen i.e. the applicant herein, at Punjab where their operations are continuing. The applicant, who is appearing in person, states that he is not willing to go to Punjab as he is not liable to be transferred to any place outside Navi Mumbai. He states that 70 employees of the petitioner have been employed by M/s. Gateway Distriparks Ltd. and, therefore, he should also be similarly employed with them. 3. A cursory perusal of the transfer agreement which was effected between the petitioner and respondent No.2 M/s.Gateway Distriparks Ltd. on 1.4.2007 indicates that, those employees who were on contract of service with the petitioner, would be permitted to continue during the pendency of their respective contracts, with M/s.Gateway Distriparks Ltd. and all liabilities in respect of those employees were taken over by M/s.Gateway Distriparks Ltd. 4. There is, therefore, nothing on record to indicate that the services of an employee who has been regularly 3 employed by the petitioner have been taken over by M/s.Gateway Distriparks Ltd. The petitioner has contended that they have no operations here in Mumbai and, therefore, they cannot continue the respondent No.1 workman in service in Mumbai. However, they are willing to reinstate him in Punjab. 5. In my opinion, this contention cannot be accepted. The appointment order issued to the applicant herein is annexed to the petition and it indicates that the applicant was appointed in their office in Navi Mumbai only. There does not appear to be any clause of transfer. 6. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the applicant would have been entitled to wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, this application is not in conformity with the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of U.P.State Bridge Corporation Ltd. U.P.State Bridge Corporation Ltd. U.P.State Bridge Corporation Ltd. v/s v/s v/s Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, reported in 2008 Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, reported in 2008 Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, reported in 2008 (2) (2) (2) Bom.C.R. 619 Bom.C.R. 619 Bom.C.R. 619 and, therefore, the present civil applications cannot be granted and stand dismissed. 7. However, if the applicant files a fresh civil application, complying with the observations of the Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment, it will be 4 decided on its own merits.