# WORKMEN OF BRAHMPUTRA TEA ESTATE, REPRE· A SENTED BY ASSAM CHAH KARAMCHARI SANGHA, DIBRUGARH v. THE INCOMING MANAGEMENT OF BRAHMPUTUA TEA ESTATE & ORS

- **Citation:** [1968] 1 S.C.R. 626
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1967-09-25
- **Bench:** M. H!Dayatullah, V. Bhargava, C. A. Vaidialingam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/workmen-of-brahmputra-tea-estate-repre-a-sented-by-assam-chah-karamchari-sangha-4151
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947). ss. 18 and 25 F-SeTvices
terminated by Receiver appointed by court-Reference of dispute- C
PuTChase of Company-Purchase. not party-Liability of purchaserReference if infructuous-Duty of Labour Court to issue notice.
On reference of an industrial dispute, the Labour
Cour~ took
the view that the services of the workmen concerned had been ter·,
minated, under instructions of the Receiver of the Company appoint·
ed in a suit long before the first respondent became owner of the
company; that the Receiver in possession was the only party im· D
pleaded and the new management, viz., the first respondent had not
been brought on record, nor was it a party to the reference, made by
the State Government; that the purchase of the company, by the
first respondent, did not show that the latter had taken over any
liabilities of the previous management, \vith regard to the claim Of
the workmen; and that there had been no purchase of the goodwill
of the company. On these grounds, the Labour Court held that no
relief could be granted, as against the first respondent, and that the E
reference itself had become infructuous. In appeal to this Court, the
workmen-appellants contended that (i) the view of the Labour Court
that the first respondent was not liable for tbe claims of workmen,
was erroneous; and (ii) even iI it be held that the first respondent
was not liable, the Labour Court, which had ample jurisdiction, in
this regard, should have issued notice. either to the Receiver appointed in the suit. or the Official Liquidator, or to both of them and
proceeded to investigate and adjudicate upon the claims of the work- F
men.
HELD: (i I The first respondent was not liable to answer any of
the claims of the workmen. He was not in the picture when the order terminating their service was made, nor when the order referring
the dispute to the Labour Court was made. Having due regard to
the various recitals in the sale deed and considered in the light of G
the principles laid down by this Court. in Anakapalla Cooperative,
Agricultural & Industrial Societu Ltd. v. WoTkmen. the first respondent was not the successor-in-interest of the Company.
What was
purchased. by the first respondent. was only the equity of redemption in a part of the assets of the Tea Compan_v, with respect to which
the Official Liquidator was still functioning, Even on the basis that
the first respondent was considered to be a person, to whom the
ownership of the undertaking has been transferred, the claims of the B
workmen had to be considered, as against the Company. in accordance with s. 25 FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, when its proviso could not be invoked. Section 25F was in force when the services of the workmen were terminated and s. 25FF had come into
effect jong before the purchase by the first respondent. [632G-633F]
\
WORKMEN v MANAGEMENT 'fEA ESTATE {Vaidiatingmn J.)
627
'I
A
Anakapalla C~perative Agricultural and Industrial Societu Ltd.
v. Its Workmen, (1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 730, followed.
(ii) Even after negativing the claims of the workmen. as against
the first respondent, the Labour Court should not have merely closed
the proceedings, by holding that the reference had lapsed. On the
other hand. the Labour Court should have issued notices to the Re-t
ceiver. or the Liquidator or to both, and, in their presence, should
B have considered the question as to whether the workmen were entitled to claim relief. In fact, the order of reference also clearly
showed that the Labour Court had full jurisdiction to consider as to
whether the termination of the services of the workmen, was justified, and whether they were entitled to either reinstatement, or any
other relief. in lieu thereof. [634B-D]

## Text

626
WORKMEN OF BRAHMPUTRA TEA ESTATE, REPRE· A
SENTED BY ASSAM CHAH KARAMCHARI SANGHA,
DIBRUGARH
v.
THE INCOMING MANAGEMENT OF BRAHMPUTUA TEA
ESTATE & ORS.
B
September 25, 1967
(M. H!DAYATULLAH, V. BHARGAVA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.)
Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947). ss. 18 and 25 F-SeTvices
terminated by Receiver appointed by court-Reference of dispute- C
PuTChase of Company-Purchase. not party-Liability of purchaserReference if infructuous-Duty of Labour Court to issue notice.
On reference of an industrial dispute, the Labour
Cour~ took
the view that the services of the workmen concerned had been ter·,
minated, under instructions of the Receiver of the Company appoint·
ed in a suit long before the first respondent became owner of the
company; that the Receiver in possession was the only party im· D
pleaded and the new management, viz., the first respondent had not
been brought on record, nor was it a party to the reference, made by
the State Government; that the purchase of the company, by the
first respondent, did not show that the latter had taken over any
liabilities of the previous management, \vith regard to the claim Of
the workmen; and that there had been no purchase of the goodwill
of the company. On these grounds, the Labour Court held that no
relief could be granted, as against the first respondent, and that the E
reference itself had become infructuous. In appeal to this Court, the
workmen-appellants contended that (i) the view of the Labour Court
that the first respondent was not liable for tbe claims of workmen,
was erroneous; and (ii) even iI it be held that the first respondent
was not liable, the Labour Court, which had ample jurisdiction, in
this regard, should have issued notice. either to the Receiver appointed in the suit. or the Official Liquidator, or to both of them and
proceeded to investigate and adjudicate upon the claims of the work- F
men.
HELD: (i I The first respondent was not liable to answer any of
the claims of the workmen. He was not in the picture when the order terminating their service was made, nor when the order referring
the dispute to the Labour Court was made. Having due regard to
the various recitals in the sale deed and considered in the light of G
the principles laid down by this Court. in Anakapalla Cooperative,
Agricultural & Industrial Societu Ltd. v. WoTkmen. the first respondent was not the successor-in-interest of the Company.
What was
purchased. by the first respondent. was only the equity of redemption in a part of the assets of the Tea Compan_v, with respect to which
the Official Liquidator was still functioning, Even on the basis that
the first respondent was considered to be a person, to whom the
ownership of the undertaking has been transferred, the claims of the B
workmen had to be considered, as against the Company. in accordance with s. 25 FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, when its proviso could not be invoked. Section 25F was in force when the services of the workmen were terminated and s. 25FF had come into
effect jong before the purchase by the first respondent. [632G-633F]
\
WORKMEN v MANAGEMENT 'fEA ESTATE {Vaidiatingmn J.)
627
'I
A
Anakapalla C~perative Agricultural and Industrial Societu Ltd.
v. Its Workmen, (1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 730, followed.
(ii) Even after negativing the claims of the workmen. as against
the first respondent, the Labour Court should not have merely closed
the proceedings, by holding that the reference had lapsed. On the
other hand. the Labour Court should have issued notices to the Re-t
ceiver. or the Liquidator or to both, and, in their presence, should
B have considered the question as to whether the workmen were entitled to claim relief. In fact, the order of reference also clearly
showed that the Labour Court had full jurisdiction to consider as to
whether the termination of the services of the workmen, was justified, and whether they were entitled to either reinstatement, or any
other relief. in lieu thereof. [634B-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 752 of
c 1966.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated february 18,
1965 of the Labour Court. Assam in Reference No. 38 of 1962.
H. R. Gokha/e, G. L. Sangh! and K. P. Gupta, for the appel
!ants.
D
S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-General and D. N. Mukherjee, for r~.
pondent No. 1.
M. M. Kshatriya, G. S. Chatterjee for P. K. Bose, respondentl!o
Nos. 2 and 3.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Vaidialingam, J. This appeal. by special leave, by the
E workmen of Brahmputra Tea Estate, is directed against the award.
dated February 18, 1965, of the Labour Court, Assam, in Refer·
ence No. 38 of 1962, holding that the Reference has become infruct\lous.
The circumstances, under which the Reference was made, by
the Government of Assam, may be stated. The Brahmputra Tea
F Estate (hereinafter called the Tea Company), comprised of three
gardens, viz., Negheritting, Rangamati and Missamara Tea Estates,
with their outer-gardens. were owned and managed by Brahmputra Tea Co. <lndia) Ltd. The Tea Company had incurred wery
heavy liabilities; and hence, on November 6, 1956, it created an
equitable mortgage, by deposit of title deeds, in favour of the
G Eastern Bank Ltd.. (hereinafter called the Bank). The gardens,
mentioned above. formed part of the security covered by the
equitable mortgage. This memorandum of equitable mortgage
was registered on November 26. 1956. As the Tea Company
failed to make payment of the money due to the Bank, the latter
filed Suit No. 21 of 1957, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge.
H Upper Assam, District Jorhat, for enforcing its rights. under the
equitable· mortgage. A preliminary decree was passed, on Febru·
ary 21. 1958; this was followed, by a final decree, on September
19. 1960.
L}J(ll~7tiSCI-li(•)
SUPllEME COUR'f REPORTS
[1968] I s.c.R.
!11 the meantime. on September 16, 1958, the Calcutta High A
Court had ordered the winding-up of the Tea Company. because
of certain defaults made by it.
Mr. D. A. Weatherson, of the
Bank. who had been appointed. by the Jorhat Court, as Receiver
of the Tea Gardens. by his letter. dated December 30. 1958, intimated the Superintendent of the Tea Gurdens, about the windingup order. passed by the Calcutta High Court on September 16. B
1958. and slated that the winding-up order operated as a statutory
notice of discharge. of all officers and employees of the Tea
Company: nevertheless. the Receiver
stated that he desired to
offer employment to all the members of the staff who were employed in the Tea Gardens on November 18. 1958, with the exception of fifteen employees. mentioned by him. The Superintendent
w;1s requested to obtain the consent of the members of the staff, C
regarding the offer made by the Receiver.
It may be stated, at this stage, that the fifteen employees.
who were excluded in the letter of the Receiver, were the persons,
whose claims were referred. by the Government of Assam, to the
Labour Court, in Reference No. 38 of 1962. The Superintendent, D
in his turn, sent communication. dated fanuary 19. 1959. to the
various workmen, offering employment. on behalf of the Receiver,
and requesting them to intimate their acceptance; but. so far as the
liflecn workmen. referred to above. were concerned. the Superinkndent sent communication. to each of them on August 21, 1961.
terminating their services. with one month's notice. The work· 1
men concerned were also promised to be paid the Provident Fund
amounts that might stand to their credit.
II was specifically
stated, by the Supcrintemknt. that the communication was being
sent. by him. on behalf or the Receiver of the Tea Company and
that the termination of the services of the workmen was because
of iheir age.
F
The Assam Chah Karrnachari Sangha <hereinafter called the
Karmacbari Sanghal compl;lincd to the Conciliution Ofticer,
Assam, stilling that the termination o[ the services of the fifteen
workmen. concerned. w:1s illegal and arbitrary. Though the Conciliation Officer appears to have taken some steps to effect conciliation, he could not pn•:ecd further. because the Superintendent 0
of the Tea Gardens regretted his inability lo pilrticipale in the
conciliation proceedings. as he had not been authorized to do so,
by the Receiver of the Tea gardens. Nevertheless. the Conciliation Officer. on September 18. 1961. wrote to the Receiver, direct,
suggesting payment of ciimpcnsation to the workmen concerned;
but that suggestion was not accepted, by the Rccciwr.
On February 18, 1961. the Hank assigned all its rights, under
the mortgage dated November 6, 1956 and the decree in Suit No.
21 of 1957. in favour of Mis Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. The
Registrar of Companies, West Bengal, Calcutta, in or about 1960,
B
W(IJ\ltllEN v. llANAGEMENT 1'EA ES''A'IE (Vairiial.'11gum, J.)
629
A had filed.a petition in the Cakutta High Court for the winding.up
of. the Tea Company. as it had failed to comply with certain statutory requirements. Ry order dated June 16. 1961. the Calcutta
High Court ordered the winding-up .<>f the Tea Company and
appointed Shri H. K. Ganguli. the Official Liquidator of the
High Court. as the Ollicial Liquidator of the Tea Company. On
B September 19. 1961. the Calcutta High
Court passed an order,
withdrawing to its file. suit No. 21 of 1957. from the Jorhat Court.
and the said suit was numbered as Trnnsfcr Company Suit No. 7
of 1962.
On October 5. 1961. the Calcutta High Court directed
the substitution of the name of M /s Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd .• in
the place of the Ei1stern Bank Ltd .. in the suit; and it also appointC d Shri K. C. Ganguli as Receiver or the Tea Gardens in the place
of the Receiver appointed by the Jorhat Court. The new Receiver,
Shri I<. C. Ganguli. was also put in p1issession and management
of 'the said properties.
Therefore, the position was that the Tea
Company. whose winding-up had been ordered, was with the
Ollicial Liquidator, and the Tea Gardens of the company. were in
the possession and management of the Receiver. appointed in the
D mortgage suit.
On July 27, 1962, the Government of Assam referred to the
Labour Court, Assam. an industrial dispute between the management of Brahmaputra Tea Estate
(Receiver in Possession) and
their workmen, represented by the Karamchari Sangh.
The disE pule that was referred, related to the justification. of the action of
the management of the Tea Estate, in terminating the services of
the fi[teen employees, and, as to whether those fifteen workmen
were entitled to reinstatement, or any other relief, in lieu thereof.
The .fifteen workmen, referred lo in this reference, are the identical workers whose services had been terminated. by the issue of
the notice on August 21. 1961, by the Superintendent of the Tea
F Gardens, on behalf of the Receiver. This is the reference, which
had been numbered as Reference No. 38 of .1962.
We shall advert. later, to the claims made by the
workmen, as well as the
contest made, by the first respondent. before us.
The La,bour
Court. on receipt of this reference, issued the necessary notices.
on August 26, 1962.
G
In the liquidation proceedings. the Calcutta High Court, on
August 17. 1962, permitted the Official Liquidator to sell the Tea
Gardens. which were the subject of mortgage, and also certain
other items of moveables. The Official Liquidator. on the basi~
of this order. conveyed. by registered sale deed. dated August 11.
R 1962. in favour of Shri Ram Gopal Sahariya. the first respondent
herein. the equity of redemption in the three Tea Gardens. and
:ilso certain tractors. lorries and other items of machinery. for a
total consideration of Rs. 5.20.000. This total consideration was
made up of Rs. 2.20.000. being the price 11f the n1oveable.s. and
630
SUPREME COURT RBPORTS
(1968) 1 S,C,R,
Rs. 3,00,000 stated to be the value of the equity of redemption. A
The sale, in favour of the first respondent, was specifically by the
Official Liquidator, acting on behalf of the Tea Company, and
what was conveyed in the Ten Gardens, was the equity of re·
demption, owned by the Tea Company, and the sale was subject
to the mortgage decree and the liabilities payable to Mis Shaw
Wallace & Co., Ltd.
B
On September 18. 1962, the first
respondent's name was
ordered, by the Calcutta High Court, to be included in Transfer
Company Suit No. 7 of 1962. The Court further discharged
Shri K. C. Ganguli, from his Receivership in the suit. and he was
also directed to deliver possession of the three Tea Gardens be·
longing to the Tea Company, to the first respondent. The first c
respondent, on his own claim, by virtue of the purchase from the
Official Liquidator, has become the sole proprietor of the Tea
Gardens; he also got actual possession of the Tea Gardens, on
September 21, 1962.
To resume the narrative, regarding the proceedings in Reference No. 38 of 1962, the Labour Court, as we have stated earlier, D
had issued notices to the parties concerned. on August 26, 1962.
The workmen filed a written statement, on February 23, 1963. In
that statement, they had stated that the fifteen workmen, concerned. had completed service, ranging from 8 to 47 years, in the Tea
Estates. and that the termination of their services, by the Superintendent of the Tea Gardens, on behalf of the Receiver, was abso- E
lutely illegal and arbitrary. They also referred to various other
matters, which it is not necessary to advert. in this appeal. It is
enough to note that the workmen required relief, by way of reinstatement
On June 27. 1963, one K. A. Muddu, as Superintendent of
the Tea Estates, filed a written statement, on behalf of the manage- F
ment.
He has stated therein. that the services of the fifteen employees were terminated on account of their age. and also because
some of them were too ill to be continued in service. He has
adverted to the fact that two of the workmen had expressed a
desire to retire voluntarily, from service.
It is further stated
therein, that, as the employees concerned were 60 years or more. G
of age. it was not possible to continue them in service. Again.
the action of the Receiver, who was in management of the Tea
Gardens. in terminating the services of the workmen. was also be
justified.
The workmen filed an additional written statement, on September 2, 1963, controverting the allegation that they were either H
too ill or they had completed 60 years of age. They again reiterated that the stand, taken by the management. was absolutely
illegal and the Receiver had no right to authorize the termination
of their services.
WORKMEN v MA.'l'AGEMENT 'fEA ESTATE (Vaidia!i1igam, J.)
631
A
On July 18, 1964/September 10, 1964, Shri R. G. Sahariya.
as sole proprietor of the Tea Estates, filed an additional written
statement, before the Labour Court, on behalf of the incoming
management. He· has referred therein to the fact that the Tea
Estate was no longer in the hands of a Receiver, and its management had vested in him as sole proprietor. He has further referB red to the fact that there is no continuity between the present
management of the Tea Company. represented by him, and that
of the past. when the Tea Gardens were owned by the Tea Company and were managed by the Receiver, appointed by the Court.
He then refers to the purchase made by him, on August 18, 1962,
from the Official Liquidator of the Tea Company, of the equity
C of redemption in the Tea Gardens.
He bas further stated that the
services of the workmen concerned, had been terminated by the
Superintendent of the Tea Gardens. acting on behaH of the Court
Receiver. as early as August 21. 1961, long before the Tea Estates
were purchased by him.
Shri Sahariya has further stated that, on July 27, 1962, when
the Government of Assam made the present Reference, the incomD ing management was nowhere in the picture and it was not, in
any manner concerned with the claim of the workmen, inasmuch
as it had no liability, whatsoever. towards them.
He averred that
he had not purchased the Tea Estates with the goodwill of the
Tea Company, or, as a running
concern. Therefore, on all
those grounds, he urged, that he was, in no manner, bound to
E reinstate or to compensate for the loss of employment of the workmen, concerned. In fact, he has specifically prayed that an order
may be passed, by the Labour Court. that the dispute. referred to
it. by tke Government of Assam. has lapsed.
The Labour Court, in its order under attack, has taken the
view that the services of the workmen concerned, have been termiF
nated. under instructions of the
Receiver of the· Tea Gardens,
appointed in the suit. long before the first respondent became
owner of the Tea· Gardens. It is also of the view that "the
Brahmputra Tha Estate
(Receiver in possession)", is the only
party impleaded, and the new management, viz .. the first respondent. has not been brought on record. nor was it a party to the
G reference. made by the State Government. The purchase of the
Tea Gardens, by the first respondent, does not show that the
latter has taken over any liabilities of the previous management.
with regard to the claims of the workmen, and that there has been
no purchase of the goodwill of the Tea Company. On these
grounds. the Labour Court held that no relief could be granted.
B as against the first respondent, arid that the reference itself had
become infructuous.
Mr. Gokhale. learned counsel for the workmen-appellants.
raised two contentions before us: (i) that the view of the Labour
Court, that the first respondent is not liable for the claims of the
632
SUPBEKE OOUllT RBPORTB
[1968] 1 8.0.11.
workmen, is erroneous; and (ii) that even if it is held that the first A
respondent is not liable, the Labour Court. which had ample jurisdiction, in this regard. should have issued notice, either to the
Receiver. appointed in the suit, or the Official Liquidator. or to
both of them. and proceeded to investigate and adjudicate upon
the cla.ims of the workmen. rn this connection. Mr. Gokhale
pointed out that the document of purchase. by the first respondent. B
would clearly show that the Official Liquidator had realised a sum
of Rs. 5.20.000. as sale consideration. and there might also be
other assets of the company; if a proper adjudication. in the presence of those parties. had been made. and relief granted to the
workmen. they would have been in a position to enforce their
claims, as against these amounts and assets of the company.
The learned Solicitor General. appearing on behalf or the
first respondent. urged that his client was not, in any manner,
answerable to the claims made. by the workmen. The first respondent was not the successor-in-interest of the Tea Company;
nor did he claim through the Receiver, who was one of the parties
c
to the Reference, before the Labour Court. Even if the Tea
Company could be considered to be a party to the Reference. his D
client could not be considered to be a successor-in-interest of the
Tea Company, because he had purchased only some of the assets
belonging to the said company, hy virtue of tlie sale. The document of purchase. by the first
respondent. would clearly show
that he has not taken over any other liabilities of the Tea Company. in that regard.
The learned
Solicitor General further E
pointed out that the remedy. if any, of the appellant. if so advised"
was only to proceed against the Receiver, or the Officiaf Liquidator; even if it be held that the ownership or management nf the
undertaking had been transferred in favour of the first respondent,
the rights of the workmen would have to be worked out. as against F
the Receiver, or the Official Liquidator. under s. 25FF. of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Ac! XIV of J 947) (hereinafter
called the Act), inasmuch as there was nothing to show that the
transfer. in this case. came within the proviso to that section.
We are in agreement with the
contentions of the learned
Solicitor General that the
view of the La.hour C'ourl. that the
first respondent is not liable to answer any of the claims of the G
workmen
concerned. is perfectly justified.
From the various
facts. given above, it will clearly be seen that the order terminating the scrvkcs of the workmen. was made on August 21. 1961. by
the Superintendent of the Tea Gardens. under instructions from
the Receiver. appointed by tile Jorhat
Court, in the mortgage
suit. On October 5. 1%1. the Migh
Court had app1>intcd a H
Receiver. for the Tea Gardens. as separate from the Tea Company.
in the suit. Trausfcr Company Suit Ni>. 7 of 1961. The order.
referring the dispuk to tlw Lahour Court was made. hy th,•
Government. on July 27. 1962. The Isl respondent. a<lmiUe<lly,
'
WORXMEN ~ MANAOEMENT TEA ESTATE (Vaidinliflgam, J.)
633
A was not in the picture, on these various dates. It cannot also be
stated·. having due regard to the various recitals. contained in the
sale deed. dated August 11. 1962. and considered. in the light of
the principles, laid down hy this Court, in A naka1>alla CooJ>erative Agric11/111ral & lnd11:1·trial Society Lttl., v. Workmen('), that
the first respondent is the successor:in-interest of the Ten ComB pany. What was purchased, by the first respondent. was only
the equity of redemption in a part of the assets of the .Tea Company. in respect of which the Official .Liquidtttor was still functioning. Therefore. the learned ·Solicitor General is perfectly justified in his contention that the first respondent cannot he considered to be a successor-in-interest of the Tea Company. nor can
C he be considered to claim through the Receive~. or Liquidator.
Even on the basis that the first respondent is considered to be a
person, to whom the ownership of the undertaking has been
transferred, it will be seen that the claims of the workmen will
have to be considered, as against the Tea Company. in accordance
with s. 25FF of the Act, when its proviso cannot be invoked.
D
Learned counsel, for the appellant, has not been able to
satisfy us that the transfer, in this case. in favour of the respondent, comes within the proviso to s. 25FF. The appellants. as
laid down by this Court, under the circumstances, in the decision
refered to above, will not be entitled to claim reinstatement. as
against the first respondent. Section 25FF was first introduced in
the Act, by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1956 (LXI
E of 1956); and, in its present form. it has been substituted. by the
Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1957 (Act XVllI of 1957).
Section 25F was in force, on August 21, 1961, when the services
of the workmen were terminated. and s. 25FF had come int@ effect
long before the purchase, by the first respondent of the Tea Gardens; and, we have already shown; that there is no liability, so far
F as the first respondent is concerned,. Therefore. the first contention of Mr. Gokhale, will have to he rejected.
But we are impressed by th<i second contention of Mr.
Gokhale, that the Labour Court should have issued notices to the
Receiver, or Official Liquidator. or to both .. as it was entitled to.
and proceeded to .consider, as to
whether any reliefs could be
G granted to the appellants. In this connection,
counsel pointed
out thats. 18 of the Act clearly visualizes parties being summoned·.
to appear, by the Labour Court. in proceedings. as parties to the
disputes, in which case, the award made, will be binding on them
also. In this appeal, before us, the Tea Company, in Liquidation. and the Official Liquidator of the Tea Company, figure :1s
11 respondents Nos. 2 mu! J, respectively. and arc represented by
same counsel. Learned counsel. appearing for those parties,
pointed out that the Official Liquidator may have various defences,
(') [1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 730.
634
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1968] l s.c.R.
available to him, if any claim is sought to be enforced against the A
company, in liquidation, or the Official Liquil;lator. Those matters
do not arise for consideration, at this stage, in this appeal, because
tho claim of the appellants, as against those persons, remains yet
to be considered by the Labour Court.
We are satisfied that, even after negativing the claims, of the
workmen, as against the first respondent, the Labour Court should B
not have merely closed the proceedings, by holding that the
reference has lapsed. On the other hand, the Labour Court
should have issued notices to the Receiver, or the Liquidator. or
to both, and, in their presence, should have considered the question
as to whether the workmen were entitled to claim any relief. In
fact, the order of reference also clearly shows that the Labour c
Court will have full jurisdiction to consider as to whether the
termination, of the services of the workmen concerned, is justified
and, whether they are entitled to either reinstatement, or any other
relief, in lieu thereof. When the proceedings are being dealt
with, afresh, as against the parties indicated above, the Tribunal
willl bear in mind the observations made above. and consider the D
nature of the relief, if any. that may be granted to the workmen
concerned.
We make it clear, that if and
when either the
Receiver, or the Tea Company, in
liquidation, or the Official
Liquidator, or all of them, are brought before the Labour Court,
they will be entitled to raise any plea in defence of the claim of
the workmen. that may be available to them, in law.
Jn that
adjudication, the first respondent herein, will be completely out E
of the picture, as no relief can be
claimed by the workmen,
against him. Further. if the claim of the workmen, is that their
services have been dispensed with, by way of retr~nchment, that
. claim will have to be adjudicated in accordance with s. 25F, of
the Act. If. on the other hand, their claim is based, on the event
of a transfer having been effected. that claim will have to be ad- F
judicated, under s. 25FF of the Act.
All these aspects will have
to be properly considered. and adjudicated upon, by the Labour
Court.
·
In the result, while confirming the findings of the Labour
Court, that the first respondent is not answerable for any of the
claims of the workmen. the award. dated February 18. 1965, is G ;
set aside and the Labour Court is directed to take up the Reference, over again. for being dealt with. afresh, in the light of th'e
directions contained above.
The appeal is allowed, to the extent.
indicated above, and in other· respects, will stanu dismissed as
against 1st respondent. Parties will bear their own costs. in this
appeal.
H
Y.P.
A ppea/ allowed in part.
,_