1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4705/2008 Jayesh Bangad VS. Labour Court, Bhilwara & Ors. Date of Order :: 25.7.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Manish Shishodia, for the petitioner. ... The petitioner is Director of M/s Kanchan Wool Tex Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1926. M/s Kanchan Wool Tex Pvt. Ltd. purchased an another company on 16.11.2006 against whom an order dated 10.5.2006 was passed by the labour court, Bhilwara while exercising powers under Section 33 (c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On non-payment of the amount determined in the tune of Rs.2,22,000/- the Tehsildar- Mandal issued a notice as per the provisions of Rule 229 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing initiation of proceedings as per Section 229 of the Act of 1956 is that no recovery could have been made from the subsequent purchaser i.e. the present petitioner. To substantiate the contention a reliance is placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Isha Marbles Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. reported in 1995(2) SCC 648 and a Division Bench's judgment of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Bhinmal 2 Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd. (DBCivil Special Appeal No.335/2001) decided on 13.3.2002. Both the judgments referred above are having no application in the present controversy as in the case of Isha Marbles (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the contractual liability and while doing so it was held that a contractual liability can not be transferred to the auction purchaser of a premises. Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Bhinmal Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd. (supra) this Court held that without determination and ascertainment of the money due by the competent authority no recovery can be made as under Section 229 of the Land Revenue Act. In the instant matter the petitioner is purchaser of the entire industrial unit, and therefore, it has to bear a liability already ascertained and determined by the labour court as per the provisions of Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petition for writ, therefore, is having no merit, hence, dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '