The judge has posed the question in the context of a dispute between Industrial Perfumes Limited, a subsidiary of Hindustan Lever Limited, and its 40-odd workers. The perfumes unit, which was situated at Hay Bunder (near the HLL Sewree factory), was integrated into HLL in 1994. Thereafter, around 272 workers of that unit opted for voluntary retirement. With only 40 workers left, the company management contended the work site was unsafe and inadequate for manufacturing activities. However, the workers approached the Industrial Court against the `closure of the Hay Bunder unit.' They argued the company could incorporate them in either their main Sewree unit or the Taloja work site, especially since all these units were involved in the same business of the processing and manufacture of perfumes.

The workerscontended that the company could not claim ``closure of business,'' since it has merely closed down a single unit. The Industrial Court upheld the workers' contention. Although the company moved the High Court against the IC order, Justice Rebello also upheld the workers' `right to work'. He observed that the company's perfumes-manufacturing segment was showing profits. It is was also pointed out that although production had shifted to Taloja, the manufacture licence remained in the name of the Hay Bunder unit. The judge observed that ``it is a typical case in which the company continues its business by shifting production. And the court has to examine the workers' right to work in this context.'' The judge further said that one group of workers is being sent home, while another group is allowed to do the same kind of work under a different label. Justice Rebello stressed that if courts can interpret the right to a clean environment, right to pure water and right to culture as different facets of the Rightto Life, the court can also address itself to the workers' right to work.