1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9238 OF 2009 Tyco Electronics Staff Union. ..Petitioner. Vs. Tyco Electronics Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. and another. ..Respondents. Mr. Nitin A. Kulkarni for the Petitioner. Mr.K.S.Bapat,Advocate i/by Desai & Desai Associates for the Respondent No.1. CORAM :R.S.MOHITE, J. DATE : 10TH NOVEMBER,2009 PC: 1 This is a petition filed by the union impugning an order dated 6.10.2009 passed by the Industrial Court, Pune. Industrial Court has rejected the application of the petitioners alleging unfair labour practice under items 1 and 6 of Schedule II and items 3,9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act,1971. It is the case of the union that the respondent No.1-company was transferred to respondent No.2-company by an 2 agreement dated 2.7.2009. The contention raised by them is that before effecting such a transfer their consent ought to have been taken under Section 25- FF of the Industrial Disputes Act. The case of the respondent No.1 is that no such consent is required. Advocate for the petitioners placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of the Gujrat High Court in the case of IPCL Employees Association and another Vs. Indian Petor Chemicals Corporation Ltd. reported in 2009-I LLJ 399. On reading the said judgment, it is clear that the Gujrat High Court has held that the employee of the transferor company cannot be transferred to the transferee company without his implied or express consent. No fault can be found with the said reasonings as without there being any implied of express consent of the employee to join the transferee undertaking, obviously, the transferee company cannot force him to do so. The said judgment also lays down that till then he will be entitled to retrenchment compensation as 3 contemplated by Section 25-FF by the transferor undertaking . The retrenchment compensation is obviously payable by the transferor company which is respondent No.1 in this case. In the circumstances, with the clarification that in case any employee refuses to join the respondent No.2 i.e. transferee company, he is entitled for compensation from the respondent No.1-company. Petition is accordingly, disposed off. 2 It is clarified that those who have joined the respondent No.2 company are not entitled to compensation. It is further clarified that in case of workmen who have actually joined the respondent No.2 company and has received the retrenchment compensation from the respondent No.2 company will also not entitled to claim retrenchment compensation from the respondent No.1 company. (R.S.MOHITE, J.)