JUDGMENT

SAWANT, J.-

Leave granted in all the special leave petitions and the transfer petitions are allowed.

2. The facts common to all the appeals/cases are as follows:

On January 14, 1982, the workmen of all textiles mills in Bombay went on strike. The strike was declared illegal on February 8, 1982. On October 18, 1983, the Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1983 (the Act) came into operation. On February 10, 1984, the management of the respondent-mills was taken over by the National Textile Corporation Limited (NTC) under the provisions of the Act.

3. It is not necessary to go into the details of the facts involved in each of the above appeals/cases. The point of law which is common to all the matters is whether the workmen have ceased to be the workmen of the textile mills and, therefore, of the NTC after the management of the mills was taken over by the NTC w.e.f. February 10, 1984. Both, the Labour Court while granting interim relief and the High Court when confirming the same by the impugned order have taken the view that they continue to be the workmen of the mills and, therefore, of the NTC.

4. The contention of the appellant-NTC is that in the 13 mills which have been taken over, in all 54,338 employees were working on the date of the strike. On the date of the take over, there were only 40,039 left. They had ceased to be the workmen of the mills when the mills were taken over. In all, 10,002 of them resigned voluntarily and the appellants paid them gratuity. Of the remaining, the appellants took over only 20,394 leaving 9,643. The present dispute concerns the said 9,643 employees. The appellants contention is that the appellants had power both implicit and explicit to choose which of the employees and how many of them they would take over. This is obvious, according to the appellants, from the provisions of the Act.

5. To support his contention, the learned Attorney General appearing for the appellants, invited our attention first to the preamble of the Act which states, among other things, that the need to enact the legislation in question for taking over the management of the textile mills arose because there was mismanagement of their affairs on account of which their financial condition had become wholly unsatisfactory even before the commencement of the strike in January 1982. Their financial condition had thereafter further deteriorated. The public financial institutions had already advanced large sums of money to the companies owning the textile undertakings and a further investment of very large sums was necessary for re-organising and rehabilitating them. Pending the acquisition of the undertakings, it was, therefore, felt expedient in the public interest to take over their management. The re-organisation and rehabilitation of the undertakings was to be done by the appellants in whom the management of the mills was vested by the Act. Since the task was of making the undertakings viable, the appellants were given a free-hand to re-organise their affairs which impliedly included also the re-organisation of the labour as they thought fit and necessary.

6. According to him, further, the provisions of Section 3(3) to (7) of the Act make the powers of the appellants in this connection clear. The said provisions read as follows:

"3. (3) Any contract, whether express or implied, or other arrangement, insofar as it relates to the management of the business and affairs of the textile undertakings and in force immediately before the appointed day, or any order made by any court insofar as it relates to the management of the business and affairs of the textile undertaking and in force immediately before the appointed day shall be deemed to have terminated on the appointed day.

(4) All persons in charge of the management, including persons holding offices as directors, managers or any other managerial personnel, of the textile company in relation to the textile undertaking immediately before the appointed da