JUDGMENT
R.J. Kochar, J.
1. The Appellant Company has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal against the order of the learned single Judge rejecting the petition in limine.
2. We have perused the order of the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court has granted an interim order in favour of the employees, who had filed a complaint through their union, the first respondent, that the bus facility which was given under the settlement by the employer Company to them from different local railway stations upto the work place was abruptly discontinued in violation of the legal provisions. The Industrial Court has given a reasoned finding considering all the facts and circumstances that the discontinuance of the bus facility provided under the Settlement dated September 30, 1994 amounted to an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. Even a notice under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 also appears to have not been given before effecting such a change in the service conditions of the employees, particularly when such a facility is being provided in all the settlements dated September 30, 1986, November 6, 1990 and September 30, 1994 under which the employees were entitled to the bus facility. The main contention of the employer inter-alia was that it had reserved its right to discontinue the said facility and that there was no unfair labour practice. The question would be whether the employer could exercise his right de hors the legal provisions, abruptly and arbitrarily. The right is also to be exercised in the manner provided under the law. It is well-known that the entire work force in this city and its long extended suburbs moves from the extreme point of their residence to the other cross-extreme destination of their work place through local railways and public buses. On account of awfully crowed local trains and public buses, many good employers have agreed to provide bus facility to their employees from some railway junctions to the far-off work-place to enable the employees to reach their factories in time. This is also in the interest of the industry and production. All these contentions will be considered by the Industrial Court at the final stage when the settlement under question will be interpreted considering the extremely unsatisfactory position in the railways and public bus transport. The Appellant Company which had agreed by way of settlements to provide bus facility should not have discontinued it abruptly. Prima facie, the findings of the Industrial Court are proper.
3. In the aforesaid circumstances, we find no merit in this Letters Patent Appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.
4. Issuance of certified copy expedited.