Case: Kamani Employees Union Vs. K.E.C. International Limited

The writ petition was filed against the interim order dated February 17, 1999 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, in the pending Complaint (ULP) No. 852 of 1997. The matter had come to this Court earlier against the interim order passed by the Industrial Court. However, this Court had directed the Industrial Court to reconsider the question of interim relief pending the Complaint. Upon such reconsideration of the application for interim relief, the Industrial Court has come to the conclusion that the 1stshould be permitted to shift certain machinery from its Kurla Plant in Mumbai to Butibori Plant at Nagpur. The details of the items of Plant and Machinery, permitted to be shifted from Kurla to Butibori, are set out in the operative part of the order dated February 17,3 ) WHEN this interim order dated February 17, 1999 was challenged in Writ Petition No. 1019 of 1999, the learned Single Judge has, in the impugned order, come to the prima facie. conclusion that the machinery was lying idle at Kurla and that the 1sthad got some orders to be executed at Butibori and the said machinery was required thereThe machinery, which is permitted to be shifted, from Kurla to Butibori, would cost Rs. 110 lacs if the 1stwere to purchase it in the market today. Rather than permitting the machinery to lie idle andat Kurla, the learned Single Judge thought it proper to confirm the interim order subject to certain modifications. The modifications, ordered, are to secure the interests of the Appellant, inasmuch as, what has now been done under the impugned order is to appoint the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, as the Receiver of the machinery which has been permitted to be shifted by the Industrial Court from Kurla to Butibori after ensuring that the machinery is insured. The 1sthas been directed to file separate undertakings in this Court to bring the machinery back from Butibori to Kurla in the event of the Industrial Court directing the 1stto do so. It has further been made clear that the shifting of the machinery by the 1stas the agent of the Court Receiver, will not create any equities in favour of the 1stand will not affect the merits of the pending Complaints. It is this order which is challenged before us.

Reasoning:
( 5 ) THIS Court, while passing the order dated October 9, 1988 in Appeal No. 474 of 1990 has already expedited the Complaint which is directed to be disposed of by October 9, 1999. In our view, having regard to the fact that 612 out of the 690 workmen have accepted the benefits of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, rather than permitting the machinery to lie idle at Kurla, interests of justice would be better served by permitting the machinery to be shifted to Butibori since the 1stneeds it at Butibori. The protection granted by the learned Judge, under the impugned order is, in our view, adequate. While the Industrial Court had permitted the 1 stto shift the machinery, the learned Single Judge has appointed the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay as Receiver of the said machinery and the 1stis permitted to shift and operate the said machinery only as the agent of the Court Receiver. Since the machinery belongs to the 1st RespondentCompany, we do think it necessary to put the 1stto terms of security or6 ) IN addition to the above protection granted under the impugned order, we are satisfied about the bona fide of the 1stin view of the future offer made by Mr. Cama, which we have recorded in para 4 above. In the circumstances, we do not think that any case is made out for intervention in this Appeal with the interim arrangement arrived at under the impugned order. The undertaking, directed to be filed by the 1sthave already been7 ) IN the circumstances, there is no merit in the Appeal.