The main legal point established in the judgment is the availability of the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the maintainability of a writ petition against a private industry.

ORDER SUJOY PAUL, J. : – This intra Court appeal takes exception to the order of learned Single Judge dated 3rd August, 2021 passed in W. P. No. 11885/2021 whereby interference on the notice of voluntary retirement issued by a purely private industry i.e. Century Textile and Industry Ltd. is decided. The writ petition of the trade union was dismissed mainly on the ground of maintainability and availability of alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act). The appellant union has drawn the attention of this bench on the chequered history of litigation between the union and the respondent employer and urged that in previous round, the transfer agreement between present respondents and Wearit Global Limited has been found to be sham/bogus and, therefore, certain reliefs were granted to the union/workmen which were not interfered with by this Court and the Supreme Court.

2. To elaborate, Shri Sanjay Parikh, learned Sr. Counsel for appellants submits that the present respondents prepared a sham transaction agreement with Wearit Global Ltd. which became subject-matter of an industrial dispute raised u/S.10 of ID Act. The reference order was unsuccessfully challenged by the employer in W. P. No. 2296/2019. In MP No. 2248/2019 the respondent/ employer assailed the award of the industrial tribunal dated 22-1-2019 passed in Complaint Case No. 1/ID Act/2018 wherein a direction was issued to the employer to run and operate units and by giving a finding that they cannot be allowed to close down the same. This award was assailed by employer in W. P. No. 2248/2019. The award was interfered with to the extent employer was directed to run the unit and it was directed that employer shall continue to pay the wages to the employees as per the agreement. SLP No. 5671/2020 was filed against the order passed in MP No. 2248/2019 dated 25-11-2019 which was disposed of by recording that any application filed by employer under section 25-O of ID Act, 1947 shall be continued without being influenced by observations made by the High Court on the viability of the unit. The undertaking given by respondents regarding payment of wages must be scrupulously complied with. Learned Senior Counsel for appellants submits that pleadings and relief claimed in the writ petition were mainly based on the past conduct of the employer. In view whereof, the writ petition was maintainable and learned writ Court has erred in relegating the appellants to avail the alternative remedy under the ID Act.

3. The appellant does not have any alternative remedy under the ID Act is the next submission of Shri Parikh based on Third Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is urged that the impugned notice dated 29th July, 2021 Annexure P/1 for voluntary retirement is not covered by any of the entries of Third Schedule. Thus, the appellant cannot be made remediless. In view of past conduct of employer coupled with the fact that fate of about 1000 workmen is involved, the writ petition was maintainable.

4. To bolster the argument that writ petition is maintainable Shri Parikh placed reliance on U. P. State Co-op. Land Development Bank Ltd. vs. Chandrabhan Dubey, (1999) 1 SCC 741 (para 27), Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust vs. V. R. Rudani, (1989) 2 SCC 691 and Gattaiah vs. Commissioner of Labour, 1981 SCC Online AP 25. The judgment of Apex Court reported in Anakapalle Coop. Agricultural and Industrial Society Ltd. vs. Workmen, (1963) Supplementary 1 SCR 730 was relied upon to show what are the conditions precedent for the employer under the ID Act for transferring a unit. If those conditions are not satisfied, the relief contained in para 7 (B and C) could have been granted to the appellant.

5. Section 25-FF of ID Act was referred to submit that this is the only statutory protection/ provision available to the workmen in the event of transfer of ownership of an industry. Since more than 100 employees are working