Partho Ghosh vs Tata Iron And Steel Company Limited ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 4816 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Partho Ghosh vs Tata Iron And Steel Company Limited ... on 25 August, 2025

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

                                                          2025:JHHC:25484
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         W.P.(L) No. 4950 of 2018
1. Partho Ghosh, aged about 55 years, son of late Narayan Chandra Ghosh,
resident of H.N. 19, Gautam Budha Path, Uliyan Kadma, PO-Kadma,
Jamshedpur, Dist-Singhbhum (East) Jharkhand-831005
2. Asit Chatterjee, aged about 51 years, son of late A.R. Chatterjee,
resident of 481-A Uliyan Workers Flat Kadma, PO-Kadma, Jamshedpur,
Dist-Singhbhum (East) Jharkhand-831005            ... ... Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus
1.Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited Bistupur, Jamshedpur, PO & PS-
Jamshedpur, Dist-Singhbhum (East) Jharkhand-831001
2. Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. Jojobera Cement Plant, Jojobera, PO & PS-
Jamshedpur, Dist-Singhbhum (East) Jharkhand-831016
3. Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Ltd., Jojobera Cement Plant, PO-Rahargora,
Jamshedpur, PS-Jamshedpur, Dist-Singhbhum, Jharkhand-831016
4. State of Jharkhand, through Secretary, Department of Labour, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Ranchi, PO & PS-Dhurwa, Dist-Ranchi-834003
                                                  ... ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

For the Petitioner(s)     : Mrs. M. M. Pal, Sr. Advocate
                            M/s. M. Patra, Mahua Palit, Advocates
For the Resp.-Tata Steel : Mr. Manish Mishra, Advocate
For the Resp.-LAFARGE : M/s. Indrajit Sinha, Sagar Kumar, Advocates
                              --------
                              JUDGMENT

C.A.V on 06/08/2025 Pronounced on 25 /08/2025 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs:

"A) The order dated 23.07.2018 passed by the learned Labour Court in Ref. Case No. 02 of 2014 whereby and whereunder NUVOCO Vistas Company Ltd. has been substituted and made party of the Reference case (Ann-14) be quashed.

B) The Respondent be directed to adjudicate the dispute in terms of the reference dated 16.01.2015 in between the parties as mentioned in the Amended Notification dated 16.01.2015. C) The Respondents be directed not to change & altered/add the party position of the Ref. Case No. 02 of 2014 and to adjudicate the real issue in terms of the order and direction dated 16.09.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in between the parties viz TISCO and LAFARGE India Ltd. And the concerned workmen within a specified time.

D) The Respondents be directed not to make the dispute more complicated by entering a new company as party in the proceeding. E) The Respondents be directed not to change and altered the service

2025:JHHC:25484 conditions and service benefits the concerned workmen till the final Award is passed.

F) Any other relief or reliefs for which these petitioners are entitled to."

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading are that in the year 1991, Tata Steel established a Cement manufacturing near Jojobera, Jamshedpur. In furtherance of its objective to confine itself to its core business of steel making, decided to disinvest its cement division and therefore sold it to M/s Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd., vide Business Transfer Agreement (BTA) dated 09.03.1999 to be effective from 01.11.1999. The employees no longer remained the employees of Tata Steel from 01.11.1999 and concerned employees were communicated by the Company through individual letters mentioning therein that their services stood transferred to M/s Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. and they would be treated as employees of said company with effect from 01.11.1999 and during their employment with M/s Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd., they have duly availed the benefits of the agreement between Lafarge Employee's Union and M/s Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd.

The employees alleged that they were not getting all the benefits which they were enjoying in their parent company and M/s Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd., was trying to change their services conditions and was also trying to discontinue the benefits which those employees were enjoying in TISCO.

Having no alternative, the petitioner's union approached to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jamshedpur raising their grievances and subsequently the commissioner reported to the Government of Jharkhand and ultimately by a notification dated 10.07.2004, referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Jamshedpur which was numbered as Ref. Case No. 14 of 2004.

3. When the reference case was pending before the learned Labour Court, the respondent TISCO moved before this High Court in W.P.(L) No. 3683 of 2003 for quashing of the notification dated 10.07.2004 on the ground that reference was made without Jurisdiction and there is no relationship of employer or employees between the parties.

2025:JHHC:25484 The writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 15.09.2006 and respondent-TISCO challenged the order dated 15.09.2006 in L.P.A. No. 492 of 2006 with L.P.A. No. 511 of 2006 which was also dismissed vide order dated 22.06.2011.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 22.06.2011, the respondent-TISCO moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8246 of 2013 with C.A. No. 8247 of 2013, which was finally disposed of with a specific direction to the appropriate government to make fresh reference within a specified period. Thereafter, in compliance of the order and direction passed the Government of Jharkhand by its notification dated 26.08.2014 issued the fresh Notification under Section 10(2) of the I.D. Act and referred the dispute for adjudication before the Labour Court, Jamshedpur in following terms:-

i. "Whether service of Sri Chandra Sekhar Rao and 73 others workmen were transferred by M/s Tata Steel Ltd. Jamshedpur to M/s Lafarge India, Jamshedpur or service of the workmen taken over by M/s Lafarge India Jamshedpur and they became employee of M/s Lafarge India?"

ii. In case some service condition and facilities which were given by M/s TISCO Ltd. Jamshedpur are violated by M/s Lafarge India, Jamshedpur. They can claim service benefits/ protection from M/s Lafarge India or they have right to go back to M/s TISCO, Jamshedpur?

4. Thereafter, the reference was numbered as Reference Case No. 02 of 2014. The concerned workmen filed representation dated 12.11.2014 for amendment/necessary correction of the notification in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the meantime, M/s Lafarge India informed the learned presiding officer vide application dated 18.05.2017 that the name of M/s Lafarge India has been changed as Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Ltd. and M/s Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. got converted into Public Ltd. company vide certificate of incorporation dated 12.03.2016 and further the name of Company "Lafarge India Limited"

was changed to "Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Limited" with effect from 10.03.2017.

5. After receiving the application filed by the Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Limited, the concerned workmen filed its reply dated

2025:JHHC:25484 08.01.2018. The learned Presiding Officer allowed the substitution petition filed by the Company vide order dated 23.07.2018 and substituted the name of Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Limited as opposite parties with a liberty that previous company namely M/s Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd., if so desires, be remained as party.

6. It appears that vide impugned order dated 23.07.2018, the learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur has merely allowed Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Ltd. to be added as a party; whereas the application was filed with a prayer for substitution of the name in view of the fact that the name of Lafarge India Ltd., stood, changed to new as Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Ltd. and a fresh certificate of registration was issued by the office of the Registrar of Companies evidencing and certifying the aforesaid fact.

7. The main thrust of the argument for the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the petitioners is that allowing the substitution of the name of the new company instead of the old company i.e. changing the name of the company from Lafarge India Ltd. to Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Ltd. will change the terms of reference.

This Court does not agree with the contention of Ld. Sr. Counsel as the change of name of a Company is statutorily permissible in terms of the Companies Act, 2013. Neither there is any change of management; nor there is any other change. The substitution of the party by virtue of the change of name of the Company is essential and important for the effective adjudication of the dispute. On the contrary; in the event, the name of the Company is not allowed to be changed, the same would not be effectively executable.

Similarly, it is the duty of the Company to bring to the notice of the learned Tribunal regarding the change of the name so that the cause title of the case, may be amended. Therefore, the request made on behalf of the management to permit to change the name of the Company was made for effective adjudication of the industrial dispute.

8. It further appears that learned Tribunal grossly erred in only adding the old name of the company, by its new name and by not deleting

2025:JHHC:25484 the old name of Company; which is an error apparent on the face of the record and error of law.

It further appears that, it was clearly mentioned that the Award that would be made in the case, shall be binding on the substituted party with same force as it would have been binding on Lafarge India Ltd.

The learned Labour Court despite the aforesaid fact, has only added Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Limited as a party and has also permitted Lafarge India Limited to be retained as a party-respondent in the array of parties, which was not needed and is in fact not permissible in law. As a matter of fact, as on date, there is no entity in the name and style of Lafarge India Limited which is incorporated under the Companies Act or otherwise.

9. Hence, in view of the change of name of the Company, the petition for substitution was filed which has been allowed by the learned Labour Court and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Ld. Counsel for the respondent rightly submitted that the addition of the Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Limited would in fact be necessary for adjudication of the "Reference dated 16.01.2015" (as amended) and in absence of Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Limited, the present proceedings pending before the learned Labour Court would be rendered not maintainable and the reference cannot be answered.

The change of name or the addition of Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Limited does not in any manner change and/or alter the party position in Reference Case No. 2 of 2014 and the real issue in terms of the directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court can only be adjudicated if the change of name is permitted.

10. The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in RSA No. 1148 of 2014 titled "Antony vs. Tata Tea Ltd." vide Judgment dated 03.07.2025 has held that "a reading of the above provision shows that when a change in the name of a company takes place and the same gets registered in the register of the companies, there is no substantial change in the constitution of the entity. Sub-Section 3 to Section 23 specifically provides that the

2025:JHHC:25484 change of name shall not affect any rights and obligations of the company or render defective any legal proceedings by or against it."

11. Further, Section 23 of the Companies Act, 1956 reads as under:

23: Registration of Change of Name & Effect:

(1) Where a company changes its name in pursuance of section 21 or 22, the Registrar shall enter the new name on the register in the place of the former name, and shall issue a fresh certificate of incorporation with the necessary alterations embodied therein; and the change of name shall be complete and effective only on the issue of such a certificate.

(2) The Registrar shall also make the necessary alteration in the memorandum of association of the company.

(3) The change of name shall not affect any rights or obligations of the company, or render defective any legal proceedings which might have been continued or commenced by or against the company by its former name may be continued by or against the company by its new name.

12. The understanding of the writ petitioners that a new Company has been made a party to the proceedings is absolutely unfounded and misdirected and in absence of the Company namely "Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Limited", no effective order/award can be passed by the learned Labour Court while answering the reference.

Therefore, this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, directs the learned Tribunal to modify the order by holding that the name of the new Company i.e. "Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Limited" must be substituted in place of the old name of the Company i.e. Lafarge India Ltd. and wherever the old name of the Company Lafarge India Ltd. appears, the same may be read as Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Limited i.e. the new name.

13. With the aforesaid observation and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed.

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

Amit A.F.R