Successive licensees of a foreign liquor shop are not legally obligated to engage workers employed by previous licensees.

Sreedharan. J1. Writ appeal arise out of the judgment in O.P. No. 9088 of 1993. Respondents 6, 8 and 9 in the said Original Petition are the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 1545 of 1993 and Writ Appeal No. 1554 of 1993 is at the instance of the 7th respondent. The appellants challenge the direction given by the learned single Judge to the police officers to ensure that no obstruction are caused to the running of foreign liquor shop No. 129 of Njarackal Range by Respondents 6 and 7 and their members and associates. Respondents 6 and 7 are two trade unions of Abkari workers. In O.P. No. 5543 of 1994, licensee of Shop No. 129 of Njarackal Range for the year 1994-1995 seeks police protection for carrying on the business without any obstruction from the members of Respondents 6 and 7 trade unions. Since the issues that arise for consideration in these matters are one and the same, we consider it advantageous to dispose of these mattes by a common judgment.

2. For understanding the true nature of the dispute between the parties, it is necessary to refer to the facts alleged by the petitioner in O.P. No. 9088 of 1993. It is as follows : Petitioner along with another took in auction the right to vend Indian made foreign liquor from Shop No. 129 of Njarackal Range for the period from 1-4-1993 to 31-3-1994. In addition to the bid amount of Rs. 8, 02, 000/-, a sum of Rs. 50, 000/- was remitted for getting permission for retail sale of foreign liquor in the shop. On getting licence for the above purpose, business was started with petitioner's workers. Workers of former licensee unauthorisedly and illegally trespassed into the shop, obstructed petitioner's workers from vending foreign liquor and claimed that they are entitled to work in the said shop. Altogether there are twelve workers appointed by Respondents 6 and 7 to do the work in the petitioner's liquor shop without here consent. Respondents 8 and 9 claimed the post of Cashier and Manager respectively in the shop. Members of Respondents 6 and 7 were the workers of the former licensee. Their engagement by the former licensee could have been only for one year. As their services stood terminated on the expiry of the period of licence, they cannot claim any right to work under the subsequent licensee. An employee who was engaged for a term has to vacate the employment on the expiry of the term. Petitioner is a licensee for the period from 1-4-1993 to 31-3-1994. So, the previous employees cannot claim any right of employment under the petitioner. Respondents 8 and 9 forcibly took the post Cashier and Manager of the liquor shop of which the petitioner is the licensee. They are illegally collecting the sale amount and are not giving proper accounts. Petitioner is not in a position to carry on the sale of Indian made foreign liquor in the shop because of the atrocities committed by Respondents 6 to 9 and their sympathisers. On these averments they approached this Court inter alia praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the police officers to stop the illegal and unauthorised acts of the members of Respondents 6 and 7 trade unions.

3. Detailed counter affidavits were filed by the respondents. In the counter affidavit filed by Respondents 6, 8 and 9, the stand taken was that members of their trade union were workers under the previous contractor and therefore they are entitled to be appointed by the petitioner, who is the licensee for the succeeding year. It was their contention that when one contractor is succeeded by another, the successor is obliged to engage the workers who were employed by the previous contractor. It was contended that employees engaged during the year 1992-93 have a right to continue in service when a new licensee acquires the right to vend liquor for the subsequent year, namely 1993-94. The service of worked under the previous contractor cannot be terminated by the new licensee with a view to engage new workers of his choice. 6th respondent even