(1) THOUGH at the outset I told the counsel that the proper remedy for the petitioners would be to approach the authorities constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act to get the relief which they want, learned counsel for the petitioners insisted upon the question raised in the writ petition being decided here. It is submitted that so far no Court has considered the question and given a decision. The point raised in the Writ Petition is whether in a case of transfer of undertaking, the employer is bound to comply with the requirements of Ss. 25-N and 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called "the Act") which are found in Chapter V-B thereof. In the present case, a notice was issued by the first respondent namely, Deccan sugar undertaking at Pugalur, Tiruchirapalli District, is transferred to the second respondent E. I. D. Parry (India) Limited effective 10. 15 a. m. on November 13, 1992. Consequently, all the employees listed thereunder were informed that they are entitled to compensation under S. 25-FF of the Act and shall cease to be in employment at 10. 15 a. m. on November 13, 1992. It is only in challenge of the said notice the present writ petition has been filed for a declaration that the non-employment of the workmen of the Sugar Factory at Pugalar on November 13, 1992 by the first and second respondent is illegal, unconstitutional and void ab initio as being contrary to the provisions of the Act and that consequently, the workmen are entitled to be continued in service with effect from November 13, 1992, with continuity of service, full back wages and all other benefits on the same terms as under the first respondent until altered in accordance with law.

(2) IT is admitted that the employees of the first respondent do not automatically become employees of the transferee, the second respondent, on the transfer of the undertaking. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that after the introduction of Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, any employer who wants to retrench the workmen shall comply with the provisions of S. 25-N thereof if the undertaking has more than one hundred workers. It is also contended that in the present case, the transfer of undertaking would tantamount to closure of the undertaking within the meaning of S. 25-O of the Act and the procedure prescribed therein ought to have been followed.

(3) AS seen already the notice refers to S. 25-FF of the Act. Under that section where the ownership or management of an undertaking is transferred, whether by agreement or by operation of law, from one employer to a new employer, every workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year in that undertaking immediately before such transfer shall be entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the provision of S. 25-F, as if the workman had been retrenched. It is not necessary to refer to the Proviso to the Section. The crucial words used in the section are "as if the workman had been retrenched. "

(4) THE question whether termination of employment on account of a transfer of undertaking or closure of undertaking will amount to retrenchment was considered by the Supreme Court in Hariprasad v. A. D. Divelkar AIR 1957 S. C. 121. At that time Ss. 25-FF and 25-FFF of the Act were differently worded. The Supreme Court held that in spite of wide definition of the word retrenchment contained in S. 2 (oo) of the Act, it had only the ordinary accepted connotation of the word and it did not include termination of service by closure of undertaking or transfer of undertaking. On the facts, the Court was concerned with closure of undertaking. In Anakapalle Co-operative Agricultural and Industrial Society Ltd. v. Workmen and others 1962 - II - LLJ -621 the Supreme Court considered the provisions of S. 25-FF of the Act and held that a legal fiction was introduced by that section for a limited purpose and on a transfer of undertaking, the cesser o