JUDGMENT

SEN, J. - Asansol Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. (hereinafter described as the Company) was a licensee under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and was engaged in the business of generation and distribution of electricity. On 5-4-1979 the West Bengal Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 4(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter described as the Act), revoked the licence of the Company and directed the Company to sell the undertaking to the West Bengal State Electricity Board (hereinafter described as the Board) on 16-4-1979. Pursuant to the said order, the Deputy Chief Engineer (Commercial) took over the said undertaking on behalf of the Behalf of the Board on 16-4-1979. The employees of the Company were allowed to continue in the service of the Board.

2. After an interval of about twenty days, on 5-5-1979 the Board asked the employees to execute a form containing fresh terms and conditions of service which, according to the employees, amounted to fresh appointments under the Board. Such appointments were to be temporary and/or provisional appointments, initially for a period of three months. The further continuance of the writ petitioners in the service of the Board was to depend on their suitability for appointment under the Board. It was further stipulated that the employees would not be entitled to the benefit of their past service under the Company. For all practical purposes, the employees were to be treated as fresh appointees on and from 16-4-1979, that is, from the date of take-over of the undertaking by the Board.

3. The employees challenged the decision of the Board to treat the employees as fresh appointees by a writ petition to the High Court. By a judgment and order dated 12-4-1988 justice Ajit Kumar Sengupta held that the employees were entitled to continue in their service despite the change in ownership of the undertaking. The employees could not be deprived of the benefits which they had been enjoying before the undertaking was taken over by the Board. The writ petition was disposed of by giving, inter alia, the following directions :

"(a) The respondents shall treat the petitioners to be in continuous service for the purpose of assigning seniority with effect from 16-4-1979.

(b) The basic pay of the petitioners and other admissible allowances shall be fixed taking into account the total length of service under the erstwhile Company as well as under the Board.

(c) Certified Standing Order of the erstwhile Company shall remain in force so far as the petitioners are concerned.

(d) Amount of gratuity shall be calculated for the petitioners who have already retired or would be retiring taking into account their entire period of service i.e. from the date of initial appointment under the Company.

(e) If any of the petitioners was entitled to bonus for the period 1978-79 such bonus shall be awarded to the petitioners.

(f) Retrenchment benefit shall be given to the petitioners as admissible if the petitioners are treated as retrenched.

(g) The respondents shall pay the petitioners the arrears of pay and allowances after fixation of pay and allowances taking into account their entire service period."

Sengupta, J., however, directed that this order would not be treated as a precedent.

4. The Board preferred an appeal against the decision of Sengupta. J. The appeal court allowed the appeal and held that there could be no continuity of service after the taking over of the management. The services of the employees were terminated by operation of Section 25-FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

5. The appeal court, however, directed that the employees were entitled to retrenchment compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Board was directed to pay such compensation to the employees within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the order passed by the Court. Aggrieved by the said order of the High Court, the