Bombay High Court
SFC GROUP INDIA PVT LTDversusSFC GROUP INDIA EMPLOYEES UNION
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The show‑cause notices are ex‑facie erroneous and the Industrial Court’s stay of the notices is upheld.
Summary
The petition challenged the Industrial Court’s order staying a show‑cause notice issued to five workers for allegedly failing to meet a production target of 2,200 parts per shift. The petitioner argued that the workers were bound only by a settlement dated 13 May 2022 which fixed a target of 1,782 parts per shift, and that a later document dated 20 December 2025 showing a target of 2,455 parts was unilaterally prepared, unsigned by the workers, and not communicated to them. The Court noted that the document was introduced for the first time, lacked the workers’ signatures, and did not match the figure in the show‑cause notice, rendering it ineffective to alter the settlement. It held that the show‑cause notices were ex‑facie erroneous and that the Industrial Court was correct in staying them. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed without interfering with the Industrial Court’s findings, which will decide the matter on its merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the show‑cause notice issued on the basis of an unilaterally executed document is valid.
- Whether a written settlement can be modified by oral intimation without the workers’ consent.
- Whether the Industrial Court’s order staying the show‑cause notice should be upheld.
Subjects
- industrial dispute
- settlement agreement
- show‑cause notice
- production target
- unilateral modification
- writ petition
- Industrial Court
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:34674
k 1/3 907 wp 10151.26 as.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.10151 OF 2026
SFS Group India Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner
V/S
SFS Group India Employees Union ....Respondent
_________
Mr. Rutwij Bapat a/w Ms. Archana Shelar for the Petitioner.
Mr. Nitin A. Kulkarni for Respondent.
__________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 21 AUGUST 2026.
P.C.:
1. The Petition challenges order dated 8 June 2026 passed by the
learned Member, Industrial Court, Pune, partly allowing the Application
at Exhibit-U2 filed by the Respondent-Union and staying the impugned
show-cause notice dated 13 February 2026.
2. I have heard Mr. Bapat, the learned counsel appearing for
Petitioner and Mr. Kulkarni, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondent-Union. I have considered the submissions canvassed by
them. I have gone through the reasons recorded by the Industrial Court
while passing the impugned order.
3. Mr. Kulkarni has placed on record complete copy of the settlement
arrived at between the parties on 13 May 2022. It is clear from the said
katkam Page No. 1 of 3
k 2/3 907 wp 10151.26 as.doc
settlement that qua the concerned five workers, the target fixed was
1,782 parts per shift. However, by way of the impugned show-cause
notices, the concerned workers were accused of not giving production at
the rate of 2,200 parts per shift. It was alleged that they were producing
only at the rate of 1,760 parts per shift. Upon being queried as to on
what basis the show-cause notices are issued quoting the figure of 2,200
parts per shift, Mr. Bapat has drawn attention of this Court to a
document dated 20 December 2025 under which it appears that the rate
of output per shift was determined as 2,455. I find no reason to believe
that the said document dated 20 December 2025 can impose any
obligation on the part of the concerned five workers to give any
particular output. There are multiple reasons for holding so. Firstly, the
said document has surfaced for the first time. It is not on record before
the Industrial Court, nor produced with the Petition. It is flashed across
the bar on behalf of the Petitioner, Secondly, the document dated 20
December 2025 appears to be a unilaterally executed document. The
same does not bear signature of any worker or their union. Thirdly, the
figure quoted in the said document does not match with the figure in the
show-cause notices. The document dated 20 December 2025 talks of
figure of 2,455 parts per shift whereas in the show-cause notices dated
13 February 2026, the figure quoted is 2,200 parts per shift. Fourthly, the
document dues not indicate that the same was brought to the notice of
workers. Since there is no document placed on record to indicate that
any communication was made to the workers/their union for giving
output of 2,200 parts per shift, Mr. Bapat submits that such an
intimation was orally given. He submits that receipt of oral intimation
katkam Page No. 2 of 3
k 3/3 907 wp 10151.26 as.doc
about expected production output of 2200 parts per shift is not disputed
by the workers. It is however, unacceptable that covenants of written
settlement can be modified by oral intimation. Prima facie, the
concerned workers are liable to give output only as per the settlement.
The output unilaterally decided by the Petitioner- Management on 20
December 2025 is neither binding on the concerned workers nor the
same can form a basis for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against
the concerned workers. In my view therefore, the impugned show-cause
notices dated 13 February 2026 are ex facie erroneous. The same have
been rightly stayed by the Industrial Court. No interference is warranted
in the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court. Writ Petition is
accordingly dismissed. Needless to observe that the findings in the
order are prima facie and that the Industrial Court shall decide the
complaint on its own merits.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
katkam
Signed by: Sudarshan R. Katkam Page No. 3 of 3
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 21/08/2026 20:38:36
Checking your session…