1. Heard the counsel for the respective parties.

2. The case of the petitioner as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that he was working as Paster in the Paste-up Department of Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd., working for Andhra Pradbha at Hyderabad Head Office and he has put in 26 years of service. He had gone on leave from 9.1.2003 to 3.2.2003 and that when he returned back to join duty, he was not permitted to join duty in the office of the 4th respondent – Express Publications (Madurai) Limited, Hyderabad, on the ground that Andhra Prabha Daily, was transferred to 5th respondent – Vasavi Communications Ltd. The case of the petitioner is that he is not willing to join 5th respondent, therefore, he sought respondents 3 and 4 to extend him Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) scheme or to terminate him by way of retrenchment under Section 25-FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) and pay the retrenchment compensation under Section 25-F of the Act. But the same is not paid. His grievance is that before transferring his services to 5th respondent – undertaking, no consent was taken and that without his consent, his services cannot be transferred, as he is willing to work only under respondents 3 and 4 and not under respondent no.5. In the writ affidavit he also stated that he was not paid the arrears of wages as per the Manisana Wage Board and that though he made representations to the Principal Secretary to Government, no action was taken. Therefore, his case is that as the respondents 3 and 4 violated statutory provisions under Section 25-FF of the Act, the official respondents 1 and 2 shall take action against them. As the respondents 3 and 4 are neither taking him into service, nor paying compensation under Section 25-FF of the Act, he filed the present writ petition.

3. The Additional Commissioner of Labour, Office of the Commissioner of Labour, A.P., Hyderabad, filed counter affidavit on behalf of official respondents 1 and 2. In the counter affidavit it is stated inter alia that A. P. Union of Working Journalists represented through letter dated 17.9.2002 that Indian Express Publications (Madhurai) Ltd., was transferred to Vasavi Communications and requested for intervention of the Labour Department. The Joint Commissioner of Labor, after elaborate discussions, advised both the managements, Express Publications (Madhurai) Ltd., and Vasavi Communications Ltd., that they should comply with Section 25FF of the Act while transferring the services of the employees and that the terms and conditions of service applicable to the employees of Andhra Prabha under the new management of Vasavi Communications Ltd, shall be the same that were applicable to them before transfer from the management of Express Publications (Madhurai) Ltd., and that in the event of future retrenchment, Vasavi Communications Ltd., is legally liable to pay compensation on the basis, that the service of the employees has been continuous and has not been interrupted by the transfer. It was further made clear that violation of Section 25FF of the Act, will attract penal provisions and that both managements should abide by the provisions of Section 25FF of the Act while transferring the services of employees of Andhra Prabha from Express Publications (Madhurai) Ltd., to Vasavi Communications Ltd., The minutes were recorded and communicated to the parties.

4. In view of the above position, the claim of the workman in the affidavit that Section 25 FF of the Act was violated by the management, is not correct. The petitioner did not choose either to resign or to continue his service with the Vasavi Communications Ltd. The petitioner cannot demand the management that he should be retained with Express Publications or else he should be paid VRS benefits or he should be treated as if he is retrenched. The petitioner should choose either to join Vasavi Communications or resign with Express Publications (Ma