The main legal point established in the judgment is that a purchaser of an establishment can be held to be a successor in interest of the vendor, and is bound by the award in an industrial dispute and the order in the Claim Petition, if the purchase meets certain criteria as laid down by the Supreme Court.

Sreedharan, J.

Writ petitioner in O.P.9732/1992 challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 23-3-1993 dismissing the said Original Petition.

2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal are as follows.- Kallada Bricks and Tile Works was owned by the father of the third respondent. On his death, the business devolved on third respondent, his mother and brothers and sisters. Third respondent was the Managing Partner of the factory. 4th respondent was an employee in that factory. He was dismissed from service. That gave rise to Industrial Dispute 31/1988. Labour Court, Kollam directed the management to reinstate the worker with all back arrears and other attendant service benefits by its award dated 17-4-1989. As the workman was not paid his wages in terms of the award, he approached the Labour Court, Kollam by moving Claim Petition 85/1989 Binder S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". That Court, by order dated 18-9-1991, fixed the amount payable to the workman at Rs.52,388/-.

3. After the award in I.D. 31/1988, writ petitioner purchased the factory and its site under three documents executed by third respondent and his relations, the legal heirs of deceased Varghese Daniel, the father of the third respondent. These documents were executed on 6-9-1991,15-11-1991 and 28-6-1992. Pursuant to these sale deeds, writ petitioner-appellant was running the factory. While so, on account of the non-payment of the amount to the workman covered by the Claim Petition 85/1989 under S.33C(2) of the Act, proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act were initiated. Factory and the stock therein were attached by the revenue authorities. Writ petitioner thereupon approached this Court to quash the proceedings initiated by the revenue authorities under the Revenue Recovery Act and also for a declaration that he is not liable for the amount covered by the award and the order in the Claim Petition passed by the Labour Court, Kollam.

4. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel representing the appellant is that the award in I.D. 31/1988 on the file of the Labour Court, Kollam is not binding on the appellant. It is also his contention that even if the award in I.D. 31/1988 is found to be binding on the appellant, the order on claim Petition 85/1989 filed under S.33C(2) of the Act cannot be enforced as against him.

5. It is the common case of parties that Kallada Bricks and Tile Works was owned and run by deceased Varghese Daniel. On his death, the factory and the premises devolved on third respondent and other legal heirs. Thereupon third respondent was running the firm as its Managing Partner. While the factory was being run by the third respondent as Managing Partner, 4th respondent, an employee in the factory, was 'dismissed from service. The said dismissal gave rise to I.D. 31/1988 on the file of the Labour Court, Kollam. That case was disposed of on 17-4-1989 by passing an award directing the management to reinstate 4th respondent with all arrears of wages and other attendant benefits. Since the workman was not reinstated with arrears of salary, he act by filing Claim Petition 85/1989. Pending that application, appellant purchased the properties and the factory under three sale-deeds dated 6-9-1991,15-11-1991 and 28-6-1992. Claim petition under S.33C(2) of the Act was disposed of on 18-9-1991 by quantifying the amount due to the workman at Rs. 52,3S8/-.

6. Sale-deed taken by the appellant specifically provided for the appellant to conduct the tile industry in the property covered therein. Document dated 6-9-1991 covers 20 Cents of properly in which the factory building, sheds and other machinery are situated. As per that document, the transferee was authorised to effect mutation to use the building and to conduct the tile industry. The sale-deed dated 15-11-1991 contains a provision that the transferor relinquishes entire possession over the schedule properties,