IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.199 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5306 OF 2006 Shri Vijay Dnyanoba Natak & Ors. .. Appellants Vs ACE Glass Containers Limited & Anr. .. Respondents -- Shri Nitin A. Kulkarni for the Appellnats. Shri D.J. Bhanage for the Respondents. -- CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A.M. KHANWILKAR, J DATED : 26TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22nd July, 2007. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has argued that the learned Single Judge has neither noticed nor dealt with the contentions raised by the appellants that the agreement dated 21st December, 2001 did not contain any clause which empowers the transferee Company to terminate the services of the Appellants and he relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in N.T.C. (South 1 Maharashtra) Ltd. & Ors. Etc. v. Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh & Ors. Etc., 1993 I CLR 602. 2. Vide agreement dated 21st December, 2001, the ACI India LLC has transferred its shares in favour of the Respondent Company. Admittedly, the contract did not contain any clause as regards the shares to the transferee Company. As far as the contention of the Respondents is concerned that the agreement was sham was rejected and the complaint filed by the complainants was also rejected by an order dated 14th February, 2006 passed by the Industrial Court, Pune. In that order, all contentions raised were dealt with by giving proper reasons. It is not even the case before us that the workmen’s case is covered under the proviso to Section 25 FF and they do not fall in any of the categories stated therein. As far as the contention raised before us is concerned, it is also without any merit inasmuch as the decision in NTC’s case (supra) is of hardly any help to the Appellants inasmuch as that was the case for statutory transfer and rights of the applicant-company were controlled by the duly enacted law and not by a private contract. Furthermore, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is that the 2 service would stand terminated upon compliance of Section 25FF of the Act as per the deeming provision. 3. We find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is devoid of merit. We accordingly dismiss the Letters Patent Appeal. CHIEF JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR, J 3