JUDGMENT

RANGANATHAN, J.:—The appellants were in service as tubewell operators in the Irrigation Branch of the Public Works Department of the Punjab State. The State took a decision to transfer all the tubewells in this branch to the Punjab State Tubewell Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), a company wholly owned and managed by the State of Punjab. Consequent on this decision, a notification was issued on 30th November, 1982 to the effect that "the posts sanctioned for the Tubewell Circle, Irrigation Branch, Punjab, are no longer needed in the public interest." It was, therefore, ordered that all the permanent posts sanctioned for the above circle be abolished with effect from 1-3-1983 and that all temporary posts be discontinued with effect from the same date. A little earlier, on 31st August, 1982, the petitioners were served with notices in terms of S. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as S. 25F) terminating their services with effect from 30th November, 1982. These notices were, however, set aside as not being in consonance with Cl. (c) of S. 25-F. The State Government, therefore, issued fresh notices terminating the services of the petitioners with effect from March 1, 1983. These notices were also set aside by the High Court on the ground that they did not conform to the provisions of Cl. (b) of S. 25-F. Thereupon the State served fresh notices on the petitioners terminating their services in terms of S. 25-F with effect from August 31, 1983. The appellants once again approached the High Court contending that the decision of the State Government transferring the tubewells to the Corporation and terminating their services was invalid. It was contended: (a) that the impugned notices did not fulfil the requirements of Cls. (b) and (c) of S. 25-F; (b) that the notification by which the tubewells were transferred was mala fide, the only object of the transfer being to frustrate certain claims of the petitioners which had been judicially recognised; and (c) that, in case the action of the State is upheld, the respondent Corporation should be held to be under an obligation to employ the petitioners with continuity of service and under the same terms and conditions- which they were enjoying prior to their retrenchment from the service of the State.

2. These contentions were rejected by the High Court. It held that the notices did not suffer from any defect. It was pointed out that the writ petitions had been filed before the expiry of the date from which the retrenchment notice was to be effective, namely, 31st August, 1983. The retrenchment notice itself specifically mentioned that the retrenchment compensation, as admissible under the rules, will be paid before the notice of retrenchment took effect and that it could be collected personally from the respondents Sub-Division/ Divisional Officers. At the instance of the Court, the State had filed an additional affidavit in which it was averred that drafts in respect of the amounts of compensation had been despatched to the Divisional Offices in the manner following:

Tubewell Division Between 25 to 27

Malerkotla August, 1983

Tubewell Division Between 19 to 24

Hoshiarpur August, 1983

Tubewell Division Between 19 to 24

Jullundur August, 1983

The relevant records showing the despatch of these drafts were also produced in the Court. The High Court was satisfied that the State had despatched individual bank drafts in respect of each of the employees well in advance of the date of expiry of the notice period and that the despatch of these drafts to the divisional offices constituted a good and valid tender of the compensation amount to the appellants. The Court held that this was sufficient compliance with the provisions of Cl. (b) of S. 25-F. So far as the provisions of Cl. (c) of S. 25-F were concerned, the High Court was satisfied that the requisite notice in the prescribed form P was sent to the Secretary to Government, Labour Departme