Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Bharat Electronics Workers Union Vs. Bharat Electronics Ltd. and Ors.

Bharat Electronics Workers Union vs Bharat Electronics Ltd. and Ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Supreme Court of India Decided Aug 29, 2016
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/76854

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Supreme Court of India
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Labour and Industrial

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Labour and Industrial

Key legal issue
Labour and Industrial

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bharat Electronics Workers Union

Respondent

Bharat Electronics Ltd. and Ors.

Excerpt

.....by the appellants, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. during this period, transfer orders shall remain in abeyance. the impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed in the above terms.” - 2 - 5. we are informed that pursuant to the order passed by the high court, a fresh reference has been made to the central government industrial tribunal, chandigarh on 01.02.2016 and the same is pending before the said tribunal.6. mr. sanjay kapur, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 & 2 points out that during this period, 11 out of 15 workmen had already joined their new work place and only 4 are yet to join.7. in the above factual matrix, we do not propose to go into the validity of the impugned order passed by the high court by which the high court has declined to grant any stay of transfer.8. we direct the central government industrial tribunal, chandigarh to dispose of the reference and pass an award expeditiously and at any rate within a period of four months.9. till the reference is answered, the status quo, as on today, with regard to the place of work of the remaining 4 workmen, shall be maintained.10. we record the submission of the learned counsel appearing for both sides that the parties would co-operate with the tribunal for the expeditious disposal of the reference.11. with the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. .................j.[kurian joseph]. ....................j.[rohinton fali nariman]. new delhi; august292016

Full Judgment

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8389 OF2016(Arising out of SLP (C) No.24606 of 2016) BHARAT ELECTRONICS WORKERS UNION APPELLANT VERSUS BHARAT ELECTRONICS LTD. AND ORS. RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

KURIAN, J.

Issue notice.

2. Mr. Sanjay Kapur, learned counsel waives notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

3. Leave granted.

4. As per order dated 16.09.2015 in LPA No.590 of 2014 (O & M), the High Court of Punjab and Haryana had ordered the following:

“.... Consequently, we hold that the reference as framed, is contrary to the standing orders and, therefore, not tenable. The reference is set aside but with liberty to the “appropriate Government (Government of India, Ministry of Labour)” to take a fresh decision in accordance with law, after considering the grievance of the workmen, which in our prima facie opinion may relate to the nature of the transfer orders and not to the absence of a policy and also objections, if any, that may be raised by the appellants, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. During this period, transfer orders shall remain in abeyance. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed in the above terms.”

- 2 - 5. We are informed that pursuant to the order passed by the High Court, a fresh Reference has been made to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh on 01.02.2016 and the same is pending before the said Tribunal.

6. Mr. Sanjay Kapur, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 points out that during this period, 11 out of 15 workmen had already joined their new work place and only 4 are yet to join.

7. In the above factual matrix, we do not propose to go into the validity of the impugned order passed by the High Court by which the High Court has declined to grant any stay of transfer.

8. We direct the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh to dispose of the Reference and pass an award expeditiously and at any rate within a period of four months.

9. Till the Reference is answered, the status quo, as on today, with regard to the place of work of the remaining 4 workmen, shall be maintained.

10. We record the submission of the learned counsel appearing for both sides that the parties would co-operate with the Tribunal for the expeditious disposal of the Reference.

11. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. .................J.

[KURIAN JOSEPH]. ....................J.

[ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN]. NEW DELHI; AUGUST292016

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial