IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 1395 of 2008(F) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.32605/2004 Dated 19/06/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ----------------------------------- DEEPAK EXPORTS ENTERPRISES BEACH ROAD,KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER N.JAYAPRAKASH. BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. K.N.BABUJI, KIZHAKKE VALAYIL VEEDU PATTOMTHURUTHU.PO,KOLLAM. 2. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM. 3. LABOUR COURT,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... R.P. No.1395 of 2008 ................................................. Dated this the 6th day of July, 2009 O R D E R The management in an Industrial dispute namely I.D.No. 98/2000 before the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam, challenged Ext.P1 award passed by the Tribunal in that I.D. in the writ petition. By a detailed judgment dated 19.6.2008, I found that there is no infirmity in the award and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner seeks review of that judgment. The petitioner now contends that subsequent to the award, the establishment itself was sold by the petitioner to another party as a going concern and therefore they are not bound to comply with the directions in the award. They have challenged the judgment in the writ petition before the Division Banch in a writ appeal. When it came up for hearing, the Division Bench permitted the petitioner to withdraw the appeal with liberty to seek review of the judgment and it is pursuant to the same that this review petition has been filed. 2. I have considered the contentions of the petitioner in the review petition. R.P. No.1395 of 2008 -2- 3. Admittedly, the transfer of the establishment was subsequent to the passing of the award. Therefore, I am of opinion that the subsequent transfer would not in any way affect the validity of the award itself. Nothing prevented the petitioner from complying with the award and then complete the procedural formalities prescribed in the Industrial Disputes Act, in the case of a transfer of an undertaking, for retrenching the workman. Admittedly, the petitioner has not chosen to adopt the procedure prescribed in the Industrial Disputes Act itself. If the petitioner has got a contention that it is for the transferee to comply with the same, it is for the petitioner to take up the matter with the transferee appropriately. That does not in any way make the award unsustainable on the ground that subsequently the petitioner had transferred the undertaking. Therefore I do not find any merit in the review petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs