IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.43 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1849 OF 2008 M/s.Harish Enterprises ...Petitioner V/s. Garware Petrochem Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.V.M.Parkar for Respondent No.5 in support of Notice of Motion. Mr.D.A.Athawale for Petitioner to oppose. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. APRIL 29, 2009. APRIL 29, 2009. APRIL 29, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. By this Motion, the Respondent No.5 in the Writ Petition prays for direction against the Writ Petitioner to pay wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is not in dispute that the Respondent No.5 was employed in : 2 : the establishment of M/s.Garware Petrochem Ltd. at Mumbai. His services were terminated on 31st May 1999. Thereafter, the Respondent No.5 raised dispute, as a result of which, reference was made to the 2nd Labour Court at Mumbai. The Writ Petitioner was not party to the said reference. 3. During the pendency of the said reference, the Writ Petitioner came to be impleaded as party thereto. From the Deed of assignment produced on record, it is noticed that the Writ Petitioner has purchased the land and plant and machinery of M/s.Garware Petrochem Ltd. at Nashik in a public auction. The Deed of Assignment is dated 30th May 2001. No clause has been pointed out from the said Deed of Assignment by the Respondent No.5 which would indicate that all the liabilities in respect of establishment of Garware Petrochem Ltd. at Nashik are also taken over by the Writ Petitioner. In other words, the Respondent No.5 was not in employment of the Writ Petitioner as such at any point of time. Merely because the Writ Petitioner was made party to the reference proceedings before the Labour Court cannot be the basis to issue : 3 : direction against the Writ Petitioner to comply with Section 17-B of the Act so as to pay the future last drawn wages on account of interim stay granted by this Court. As a matter of fact, Section 17-B of the Act would be attracted only if the relationship of the parties is that of employer and workman and not otherwise. 4. To get over this position, Counsel for the Respondent No.5 has relied on the decision of our High Court in the case of Ninan Thomas vs. Oil & Ninan Thomas vs. Oil & Ninan Thomas vs. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & Anr. reported in Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & Anr. reported in Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2009 I CLR 48. 2009 I CLR 48. 2009 I CLR 48. The exposition in the said decision has no bearing on the point in issue to be answered in the present Motion. Indeed, in this decision, the Court has observed that the powers of this Court is not restricted in any manner. That does not mean that this Court would come to the aid of Respondent No.5 who was never in the employment of the Writ Petitioner. As aforesaid, the Writ Petitioner has purchased only the land and plant and machinery of the Company in whose establishment the Respondent No.5 was working but at a different place altogether. : 4 : 5. Counsel for the Respondent No.5/Applicant has also relied on another decision of Division Bench of our High Court in the case of Oil & Oil & Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Ninan Thomas Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Ninan Thomas Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Ninan Thomas reported in 2009 I CLR 279 reported in 2009 I CLR 279 reported in 2009 I CLR 279. Reliance is placed on observations made in Paragraph 7 of this decision. The said exposition is restating the legal position regarding Section 17-B of the Act. As aforesaid, this decision will have no bearing on the point in issue. In the present case, it has been noticed that the Respondent No.5 was never in the employment of the Writ Petitioner at any point of time and that the Writ Petitioner has merely purchased the land and plant and machinery of the Garware Petrochem Ltd. in a public auction. In other words, there was no relationship of employer and worker between the parties nor it is the case of the Respondent No.5 that the Writ Petitioner has taken over all the liabilities of Garware Petrochem Ltd. in terms of the Deed of Assignment. 6. Taking overall view therefore, in my opinion, Respondent No.5 cannot pursue claim under : 5 : Section 17-B against the Writ Petitioner. Hence, this Motion fails. The same is rejected. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.