1 wp-6103-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6103 OF 2009 Chatrapati Rajaram Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Kolhapur ..Petitioner Vs. Shri.Appaso Usman Pathan and Anr. ..Respondents .... Mr.Neel Helekar Adv. for Petitioner .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATED : 20th July, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Leave to amend granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. The petitioner challenges the order of the Industrial Court dated 30th January, 2009 wherein the petitioner along with Respondent no.2 was held jointly and severally liable to comply with the order of the Labour Court, passed in the Complaint ULP No.638 of 2001. 3. Brief facts of this case are that: Respondent no.1 was in employment of respondent no.2 i.e. Kolhapur Sugarcane Works Ltd. Respondent no.1 came to be 2 wp-6103-09 terminated by respondent no.2. Termination came to be challenged by respondent no.1 before the Labour Court at Kolhapur. The Labour Court by its judgment and order dated 20th June, 2000 passed in B.I.R. Application No.17 of 1984, directed respondent no.2 The Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. to reinstate the applicant therein with the continuity of service and 40% back wages. As no action was taken, respondent no.1 filed complaint of unfair labour practice under item nos.9 and 10 of Schedule IV against respondent no.2 as well as the present petitioner. As stated earlier, the Industrial Court held that both respondent no.2 and the petitioner are jointly and severally liable to comply with the order of the Labour Court. 4. The case of the petitioner is that respondent no.1 was terminated in 1984 and the Labour Court has specifically directed respondent no. 2 to reinstate the respondent no.1 with continuity of service and 40% back wages. It is submitted that though the present petitioner was a party in the proceedings before the Labour Court as respondent no.2, no orders were passed against the present petitioner and orders were only passed against the respondent no.1 therein i.e. The Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. It is submitted that when the Labour Court had not passed any direction in respect of the present petitioner, the Industrial Court was in error in passing 3 wp-6103-09 directions against the present petitioner. 5. It is seen that respondent no.1 original complainant was working with respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 was taken over by the present petitioner in October, 1986. Reliance was placed upon the agreement which shows that after respondent no.2 was taken over by the present petitioner in October, 1986, the liability is transferred to the present petitioner. When the original B.I.R Application No.17 of 1984 was filed by respondent no.1 before the Labour Court challenging termination, at that time, only The Kolhapur Canesuar Works Ltd. was in existence. But thereafter because of the agreement, petitioner came into picture. When the order was passed on 20th June, 2000, the liability covering the benefits to be given to all the past workers and employees working in respondent no.2, was already transferred to the present petitioner in view of the agreement. In view of the agreement, there is an employer and employee relationship between the respondent no.1 and the present petitioner. 6. It is important to note that the order was passed by the Labour Court on 20th June, 2000. At that time, the said agreement which was signed in October, 1986 was not placed before the Court. Therefore, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that respondent no.1 was not able to prove as to whether the petitioner 4 wp-6103-09 was liable or not and hence, no order was passed in respect of the present petitioner. However, when complaint filed under item nos. 9 and 10 of Schedule IV for non-compliance of the order of Labour Court dated 20th June, 2000 came to be filed, at that time, complainant i.e. Respondent no.1 had placed the correct facts before the Court and pointed out that although the Labour Court has held that The Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. was liable to reinstate and pay 40% back wages to the complainant, however, as respondent no.3 therein i.e. present petitioner had taken over the liability to pay all the dues under the agreement, all the past workers and staff of The Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. and their liabilities stood transferred to the petitioner in 1986 itself. 7. Useful reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2001(3) LLN 707 page 705. wherein similar situation arose and it has been held therein as under:- “The entire assets and liabilities of the Amalgamated Electricity Company were taken over by the Karnataka Electricity Board. Even as per Section 25 FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, where the ownership or management of an undertaking is transferred, whether by agreement or by operation of law, from the employer, every workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year in that undertaking immediately before such 5 wp-6103-09 transfer shall be entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 25F thereof. These workers were not paid any such compensation as per Section 25F. Their services should be deemed to have been not interrupted by such transfer. Had the Amalgamated Electricity Company Ltd., been functioning in Belgaum, the said company would have been legally bound to engage these workers as their workmen by virtue of the award passed by the tribunal. The Karnataka Electricity Board being the successor-in-interest is bound to reinstate these workers as per the award passed by the tribunal ”. 8. In view of the clause in agreement of October, 1986 and in view of the above decision, the order of the Industrial Court does not call for interference. 9. Writ petition is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]