SREE ANAND REFINERIES v. LABOUR COURT

OP 22565/1999-:2:-physical possession in terms of Section 29 of the State FinancialCorporations Act, 1951 led to a sale on “as is where is” conditionto the writ petitioner No.1 of which the second respondent wasthe Managing Director. 4. The aforesaid facts would show that Ext.P2 order onthe claim petition based on I.D.No.63 of 1993 is one against thefirst respondent in those proceedings and cannot bind the secondrespondent therein because the second respondent is not atransferee of the undertaking but is only an auction purchaser ofthe assets, which were taken possession of by the KFC in terms of Section 29 of the SFC Act. The jural relationship between thesecond respondent and third respondent does not get transferredby that process to the writ petitioners and therefore thepetitioners cannot be mulcted with the responsibility to satisfyExt.P2 claim petition. Under such circumstances, the directionissued by the additional fourth respondent Labour Officer callingupon the writ petitioners to satisfy the order on the claim petitionis without jurisdiction. The decision contained in Ext.P3 istherefore quashed. OP 22565/1999-:3:-5.However, the second respondent worker has to get hisbenefit under Ext.P2 order. This has to be necessarily from thehands of the third respondent on behalf of the first respondent, namely Salar Solvent Extractions Ltd. The additional fourthrespondent is therefore directed to ensure that all appropriatesteps are taken for immediate recovery of all amounts due under Ext.P2 from the third respondent and made available to thesecond respondent workman at the earliest. Writ petition is allowed. No costs. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge.sl. OP 22565/1999-:4:-Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.=========================O.P.No.22565 of 1999-J========================= JUDGMENTDated:8-10-2007