SUNIL KR. GHOSH & ORS. versus K. RAM CHANDRAN & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 13 S.C.R. 236 · Decided: 18-11-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 236 
SUNIL KR. GHOSH & ORS. 
v. 
K. RAM CHANDRAN & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 9921-22 of 2011) 
NOVEMBER 18, 2011 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Workmen's rights in case 
of transfer of an undertaking - On facts, transfer of ownership 
C of a factory to a new employer - Dispute between the 
Management and the workers - Application by Workers' Union 
to refer the dispute for adjudication, rejected by the 
Management - Thereafter, workers asking the Management 
for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) since they were not 
o interested in joining the new employer - However, the request 
not acceded to since the VRS introduced by the Management 
had lapsed - Writ petition by the workers - Direction by the 
Single Judge of the High Court tc, the Management for 
payment of retirement and retrenchment benefits to the 
E workers - On appeal, held: Without consent, the workmen 
cannot be forced to work under different management and in 
that event, those workmen are entitled to retirement/ 
retrenchment compensation in terms of the Act - Single 
Judge of the High Court was conscious of the fact that these 
F workmen failed to aval1 the VRS within the stipulated time and 
also did not retire from the service - However, the workmen 
cannot be compelled to join the transferee company against 
their wish/consent and all along workers had been fighting for 
their cause in various forums - Also the Single Judge had 
G passed the said order after hearing all the parties in the nature 
of mandatory directions to the Management - Thus, the 
Single Judge was justified in passing the order -Management 
directed to comply with the directions issued by the Single 
Judge of the High Court. 
H 
236 
SUNIL KR. GHOSH & ORS. v. K. RAM CHANDRAN & 237 
ORS. 
P.I. Company introduced Voluntary Retirement A 
Scheme (VRS) for its workmen in the year 1997. The next 
year, the Company informed the workers about the 
transfer of ownership of its factory to 'K' Company. 
Appellant-workers filed an application under Section 10(2) 
of the Industrial Disputes Act for referring the disputes 
B 
for adjudication but the Labour Department, Government 
of West Bengal refused to refer the same. The appellant-
workers asked for VRS from P.I. Company alleging that 
they did not wish to join the new employer but the 
request was turned down by the Company on the ground' c 
that the VRS had lapsed in 1998. The appellant-workers 
filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the 
refusal to refer and seeking direction for payment of VRS. 
The Single Judge of the High Court by order dated 
08.10.2001 disposed of th.e writ petition with a direction 
0 
to the respondent-Management for payment of retirement 
and retrenchment benefits to the workers. The appellant-
workers filed a contempt application alleging violation of 
the order dated 08.10.2001 and the same was dismissed. 
The appeal filed by the appellant-workers before the 
Division Bench of the High Court was also dismissed. 
E 
Therefore, the appellants filed the instant appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Inasmuch as while rejecting the challenge 
F 
made to refer the matter for adjudication before the 
Labour Court/Tribunal, the Single Judge, in order to 
protect and safeguard the interests of the workmen, 
issued such directions taking note of various aspects 
including several safeguards provided in the Act and also 
G· 
the payment of compensation in case of transfer of an 
undertaking. No doubt, the Management raised an 
objection that these workmen neither availed the VRS 
within the stipulated time nor retired/retrenched from the 
service due to the transfer of ownership of the Company. 
H 
238 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A It is true that the appellants-workers did not avail both the 
conditions. But at the same time, it cannot be disputed 
that these workmen resorted to several remedies such as 
filing a suit, making representation to the Management as 
well as to the officers of the Labour Department for 
B 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 a writ petition before the High Court. The 
Single Judge of the High Court took note of proposal for 
c transfer between the respondents and Workers' Union 
and all other subsequent events including the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.