Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8178 of 2006 Shri Arjun Chindu Gharte ...Petitioner V/s. M/s. Union Steel and ors. ...Respondents Mr.I.R.Kulkarni for the Petitioner Mr.R.D.Oak for Respondent No.2 CORAM CORAM CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. DATED DATED DATED : 8th February , 2008 : 8th February , 2008 : 8th February , 2008 P.C. Heard Mr.Kulkarni, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The IIIrd Labour Court at Thane by its Award dated 29-10-1997 had allowed the Reference(IDA)No. 78/1990 and directed the reinstatement of the present petitioner Shri Arjun C.Gharte with continuity of service and full backwages w.e.f. 8-10-1989 till the date of reinstatement in the employment of M/s. Union Steel, B-16 MIDC Area, Badlapur, Dist. Thane. The said Award was not implemented and,therefore, the petitioner approached the Labour Court with an application under Section 33C(2) of the I.D.Act, 1947 for recovery of financial dues. The said application came to be allowed by the IVth Labour Court at Thane on 29-7-2004. The Labour Court held that the petitioner is entitled for an 2 amount of Rs. 2,85,810/- towards backwages upto February 1998 from the opponent no.1 who has been further directed to pay the same amount to the applicant within two months. 2. By this Petition the grievance raised by the petitioner is that the Labour Court ought to have directed the amount to be recovered from Respondent Nos.2 and 3 alongwith Respondent No.1 jointly or severally. 3. There is no dispute that the Respondent No.1 was a Proprietory firm of Shri Gopalkrishna Narsima Nayak and by an agreement dated 21-5-1990 he sold the land of the factory admeasuring about 2400 sq. meters to M/s. Union Steel through its Managing Partner Mr. Joseph Karket. It was submitted by Mr.Kulkarni that as all the assets of the employer company were transferred to M/s. Tube Glass Container, the decree ought to have been directed to be executed against the new company as well. The Labour Court has turned down this prayer and rightly so. In para 5 of said complaint. "It has been agreed by and between the parties here 3 that parties of the first party will be responsible for all the dues namely payment of electric bills, water bills, MIDC charges, municipal taxes and also the statutory dues pertaining to ESIC, PF, Excise,profesesional tax, sales tax, payments of whatsoever nature like wages, leave payment, gratuity compensation or any of the dues to the employees or ex-employees or proprietory firm of union seeking prior to the date of this agreement and also upto the final deal and selling of the property. The parties of the 2nd party will only be responsible for the liabilities arising out of his activities after the end of the final deed and taking over possession." . In view of the said agreement so far as dues of wages or any other payments as available to the workman, it was the responsibility of the first party namely M/s. Union Steels alone and the same liability cannot be hoisted on M/s.Tube Glass Containers and that as the said company is not successor in interest of M/s. Union Steel in the eyes of law so far as payments to workmen are concerned. 4. Hence, the challenge to the order passed by the 4 Labour Court directing the recovery only against M/s. Union Steels does not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. 5. Petition is rejected summarily. [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.]