( 1 ) THESE two writ applications being inter related were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. In writ Petition No. 7640 of 1999, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus quashing the g. O. Rt. No. 506 dated March 23, 1999 and g. O. Rt. No. 507, dated March 23, 1999. In w. P. Np. 13056 of 1999, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the provisions of Section 10-B of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 inserted by amendment Act 32 of 1987 as unconstitutional.

( 2 ) THE basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The petitioner which is a private limited company incorporated under the companies Act, 1956 entered into a Business purchase Agreement with respondent No. 6 whereby and whereunder it acquired the business undertaking of the respondent No. 6 situated at Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada in terms whereof services of 78 permanent employees were taken over by the petitioner. The petitioner set up a manufacturing unit at the village Atmakur, Vijayawada with a view to meeting the exacting quality standards of its beverages. The fifth respondent Union filed a complaint before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour on November 14, 1998 and the same was taken up for conciliation proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act. A writ petition marked as W. P. No. 34032 of 1998 was filed by the 5th respondent Union during the pendency of the said proceedings before this court for a direction against the petitioner herein for absorption of its 61 members who were admittedly piece rated and casual workers.

( 3 ) IN the said Writ Petition No. 34032 of 1998, by a judgment dated December 13, 1998, a learned single Judge of this Court recorded the memorandum of understanding dated january 24, 1998 filed before the Conciliation officer which reads as follows:"it is not the intention of the company to get some of the people out of employment. Hence, to provide them with alternate employment the company has considered various options and is left with following two options as given below: (I) Those of such people who have been working on casual basis, be it piece rate/time rate can now work in the new premises of Vijayawada Bottling Company limited at Gosala village, Bunder Road, krishna district. (II) They could also work under Vijayawada bottling Company Limited at the Bharat coca Cola premises at 3/131-A, Eluru road, in similar working conditions if they so desire but would continue to be part of the Vijayawada bottling company limited, wherein we become the work contractors. "alternatively, the employees have also been given the option of leaving the services upon which the company shall pay the dues to them including gratuity and all other benefits as applicable under Section 25-FF. The company is willing to pay the compensation as per the Section quoted, though Section 25-E (i) recommends that no compensation is payable, when an alternate employment is provided. After the settlement they have the liberty to work wherever they intend to and the company shall not be liable in any way.

( 4 ) THE learned single Judge having regard to the understanding reached between the parties in terms of the said letter directed:"in the light of the understanding reached during the course of hearing, I need not go into all these questions as the Transferor company in unequivocal terms, declared that without altering the status of the workers it is prepared to continue their services and the question of retrenchment does not arise. The letter dated November 24, 1998 filed by respondent No. 5 company before the Conciliation Officer to that effect was also produced before the Court. The undertaking given by respondent No. 5-company is recorded and the writ petition is closed, leaving open all the questions of law for future adjudication, if necessary. It is finally observed that if any need arises for retrenchment of the workers, the parties may approach appropriate forum under the industrial Dispu