1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2920 OF 2009 Vijayanand B. Patil. ..Petitioner. Vs. M/s. Associated Breweries & Distilleries Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Mayuresh Modgi for the petitioner. Mr.A.K. Jalisatgi and Amol Doshi for the the Respondent. CORAM :R.S.MOHITE, J. DATE : 12TH NOVEMBER,2009 PC: 1 This is a petition filed by the workman impuging an award passed by the 3rd Labour Court, Thane dismissing Reference at his behest. The facts indicates that there was transfer of undertaking and in such situation, the compensation as contemplated by Section 25FF was paid. Point sought to be raised is that procedure prior to retrenchment contemplated in Section 25-N has not been followed. This contention is misplaced as 2 there is no retrenchment. The termination of service is in view of transfer of undertaking and the special provisions contemplated by Section 25FF which lay down entitlement of the workman have been complied. Section 25-N applies where the employer retrenches the employee, in cases other than transfer of undertaking as covered by Section 25FF. Petition is summarily rejected. (R.S.MOHITE, J.) 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3170 OF 2009 Vivekanand B. Patil. ..Petitioner. Vs. M/s. Associated Breweries & Distilleries Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Mayuresh Modgi for the petitioner. Mr.A.K. Jalisatgi and Amol Doshi for the the Respondent. CORAM :R.S.MOHITE, J. DATE : 12TH NOVEMBER,2009 PC: 1 This is a petition filed by the workman impugning an order dated 29.11.2008 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane dismissing the complaint (ULP) No.335/2001 on the ground that the petitioner has failed to prove that the respondents have engaged in unfair labour practice under item 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTP & PULP Act. This is a case of transfer of an undertaking. The present petitioner was not absorbed in the transferee 4 company but was paid compensation under Section 25FF. Advocate for the petitioner relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of this court reported in 2008(1) ALL MR 277. On perusal of the said judgment, it is seen that the ratio laid down in that case is not applicable to the present case as it was not a case of transfer. In the circumstances, not a fit case to interfere. Hence, petition is summarily rejected. (R.S.MOHITE, J.)