JUDGMENT - KOCHAR R.J., J.:---The petitioner company is aggrieved by the order dated 8th February, 1991 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane in Complaint (U.L.P.) No. 46 of 1983 filed by the respondent No. 2 employee, under section 28 read with section 30 and Item 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 praying for a declaration that the respondents in the complaint had engaged in the unfair labour practice of failure to implement the Award dated 31st December, 1981 in Reference (I.D.A.) No. 589 of 1976 and for a direction to desist from engaging in the unfair labour practice complained of. The reference was between the original employers, viz., Esskay Steel Rolling Mills and the workman Shri Mangli. The petitioner is the company which according to the workman is the successor in interest of the original employer and is liable to implement the Award against the original employer. For the sake of convenience the parties will be hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner company" and the "original employer" i.e. (Esskay) and the workman. In the complaint before the Industrial Court in addition to the original employer, its manager, Shri S.P. Sharma as the partner of the original employer and the petitioner company were arrayed as the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. It appears that the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 did not contest the complaint after the interim orders were passed and it was the petitioner company that contested the complaint till the end and it is doing so even before this Court. The respondent No. 3 in the petition i.e. the original employer is absent even before me though duly served.

2. The workman succeeded before the Labour Court on 31st December, 1981 to get the order of his termination passed by the original employer on 21st November, 1975 set aside and to get the order against them to reinstate him with full backwages and continuity of service. In spite of his herculean efforts, he has been as yet, even after the turn of the century, not able to taste the fruit of his successful Award. According to Shri P.K. Rele, the learned Senior Counsel, the petitioner is not liable to implement the Award against the original employer as the petitioner was not successor in interest of the said original employer and did not step in the shoes of the original employer. The original employer and its partners are liable to implement the Award, argues the learned Counsel. They are not contesting even from the stage of the Industrial Court and they are absent here also, purposely, says Shri Rele. According to the petitioner it had merely purchased "the used and old plant and machinery along with its shed and structure as is where is condition situated at Surendra Industries Compound 2nd Pokhram Road, Thane" for a sum of Rs. 8,34,300/- as reflected in the Bill No. 2505 dated 22nd January, 1981 of the original employer. It is their emphatic case that they had not stepped in the shoes of the original employer as transferee of the whole undertaking and they had never accepted any other liabilities, including those of the employees of the original employer. They have point blank and flatly denied any liability to implement the said Award. Shri Rele further submitted that the original employer had closed down its business at Thane and had shifted its activities at Tarapur and therefore the workman should enforce his Award against them and not against the petitioner. According to Shri Rele the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to decide the complicated issue whether the petitioner could be held to be successor in interest and to be liable to implement the Award passed not against them but against the original employer under an executory and limited jurisdiction under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. Shri Rele further submitted that except an interested version of the original employer that the petitioner was their successor in interest, there was no evidence to substantiate the said plea of the original employer t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document