IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.113 OF 2007 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.113 OF 2007 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.113 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.442 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.442 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.442 OF 2007 IN IN IN WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.1287 OF 2007 PETITION NO.1287 OF 2007 PETITION NO.1287 OF 2007 The Associated Cement Staff Union ..Appellant. V/s. ACC Ltd. & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr.P.M.Patel for appellant. Mr.J.P.Cama, senior counsel with Bharat Goyal and Mrs, Sarika Deshpande i/b. Haresh Mehta & Co.for respondents. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.AND J.P.DEVADHAR, J. J.P.DEVADHAR, J. J.P.DEVADHAR, J. DATED : 23RD JANUARY, 2008. DATED : 23RD JANUARY, 2008. DATED : 23RD JANUARY, 2008. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. In Writ Petition No.1287 of 2007, learned Single Judge made the Rule absolute and passed the following order:- i) The impugned order passed by the Industrial Court is quashed and set aside. ii) The petitioner is restrained from effecting retrenchment of any employee on the ground that they are rendered excess on introducing / implementing the SAP Technology. iii) The petitioner shall also not redeploy or transfer the employees without prior permission - = : 2 : = - of the Industrial court and it shall not redeploy / transfer any employees contrary to the terms of employment. iv) The Industrial court in the facts of the present case shall proceed to decide the complaint as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from today. Rule made absolute accordingly. 2. Aggrieved by the above order, the workmen have filed the present Appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant while relying upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Hindustan Hindustan Hindustan Liver Ltd. V/s. Hindustan Lever Employees Union & Liver Ltd. V/s. Hindustan Lever Employees Union & Liver Ltd. V/s. Hindustan Lever Employees Union & Anr. Anr. Anr. reported in 2006 (91) CLR 543 2006 (91) CLR 543 2006 (91) CLR 543 contended that it is not necessary that in the process of rationalisation there should be actual retrenchment or surplus staff, but it is sufficient if such act of rationalisation is likely to lead to the retrenchment for being covered under Item 10 of the fourth Schedule. The happening of the event is irrelevant. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for the respondents brought to the notice of the Court that they have already filed the affidavit before the Industrial Tribunal stating that they have not and they would not retrench any employee as a result of the implementation of the SAP technology for betterment of business. During the course of arguments before us, it was further stated that said scheme has already been implemented and no worker has - = : 3 : = - been retrenched. Reliance was placed upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Hindustan Lever Hindustan Lever Ltd. V/s. Ram Mohan Ray and others Ltd. V/s. Ram Mohan Ray and others Ltd. V/s. Ram Mohan Ray and others reported in A.I.R. A.I.R. A.I.R. 1973 Supreme Court, 1156 1973 Supreme Court, 1156 1973 Supreme Court, 1156 to justify the said situation that where such a statement is made before the Court, workmen cannot raise the grievance on an apprehension that they are likely to be retrenched. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the order impugned in the present appeal, we are of the considered view that there are no errors of law in the order challenged before us. Learned Single Judge has sufficiently protected the interest of the parties, inasmuch as, directions have been given that the workmen would not be transferred or redeployed without the leave of the Tribunal. Furthermore, the complaints before the Tribunal have been ordered to be decided expeditiously. Once there is an unequivocal statement made on behalf of the Management that they have not retrenched any worker and they fully stand by that statement, there is hardly any occasion for this Court to presume that there is an apprehension of retrenchment at this stage of the proceedings. The proceeding before the Industrial Tribunal have not been concluded as yet and is pending. We see no reason to interfere in the order impugned in the appeal. - = : 4 : = - 4. Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 5. In view of the disposal of the appeal, the Civil Application No.442 of 2007 does not survive and disposed of as such. CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE J.P.DEVADHAR, J. J.P.DEVADHAR, J. J.P.DEVADHAR, J.