MANAGEMENT OF R.S. MADHORAM AND SONS AGENCIES (P) LTD. versus ITS WORKMEN

Citation: [1964] 5 S.C.R. 379 · Decided: 14-11-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
' • 
5 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
MANAGEMENT OF R.S. MADHORAM 
AND SONS AGENCIES (P) LTD. 
v. 
ITS WORKMEN 
{P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO AND 
K. C. DAS GUPTA JJ.) 
379 
Industrial Dispute-Transfer of workmen and 
business-
Business not separate-If transfer valid-Industrial Disputes Act, 
1947 (14 of 1947), s. 25FF. 
An industrial dispute arose between the appellant the Manage-
ment of R.S. Madhoram & Sons (Agencies) (P) Ltd., and the 
respondents its workmen, in regard to the transfer of 57 employees 
from the Management of R.S. Madhoram & Sons, which was there 
original employer, to the appellant. By agreement the transferor 
firm transferred its retail business to the appellant. This dispute 
was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. The 
case of the respondents was that s. 25FF is inapplicable to their 
case, because the ownership or management of the undertaking 
has not been transferred by the firm to the company within the 
meaning of that section. The case of the appellant was that the 
said transfer was fully valid and justified under s. 25FF of the 
Act. 
In the present case, the muster roll showing the list 
of employees was common in regard to all the departments of 
business run by the transferor firm. The employees could be 
transferred from one department run by the transferor firm to 
another department. In the payment of bonus all the employees 
were treated as constituting one unit and there was thus both 
the unity of employment and the identity of the terms and condi-
tions of service. The respondents succeeded before the Tribunal. 
The appellant has come to this Court against the award of the 
Tribunal. 
He/d:-(i) The first and foremost condition for the appli· 
cation of s. 25FF is that the ownership or management of an under-
taking is transferred from the employer in relation to that under-
taking to a new employer. Normally this would mean that the 
ownership or the management of the entire undertaking should 
be transferred before s. 25FF comes into operation. If an under-
taking conducts one business it would normally be difficult to 
imagine that its ownership or management can be partially trans-
ferred to invoke the application of s. 25FF. It may be that one 
undertaking may run several industries or businesses which are 
distinct and separate. In such a case, the transfer of one distinct 
and separate business may involve the application of s. 25FF. 
On the facts of this case it was held that the retail business of the 
transferor firm was not a separate and distinct business and as 
such, the impugned transfer did not amount to the transfer of 
1963 
November U 
380 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1964] 
1963 
the ownership or management of an undertaking so as to attract 
the provisions of s. 25FF of the Act. In the present case, the 
Management of appellant cannot claim to be a successor-in-interest of the firm so 
R.S. Madhoram as to attract s. 25FF of the Act. 
& Sons 
v. 
Its Workmen 
(ii) It would be difficult to lay down any categorical or general 
proposition as to the applicatiOn of s. 25FF. Whether or not 
the transfer in question attracts the provisions of s. 25FF must 
be determined in the light of the circumstances of each case. The 
question as to whether a transfer has been effected so a:; to attract 
s. 25FF must ultimately depend upon the evaluation of all the 
relevant factors and it cannot be answered by treating anyone 
of them as of over-riding or conclusive significance. 
Anakapalle Co-operative Agricultural and Industrial Society 
v. Its Workmen, [1963] Supp. I.S.C.R. 730, relied on. 
CrvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:-Civil Appeal 
No. 13 of 1963. 
Appeal by special leave from the award dated 
January 20, 1962, of the Industrial Tribunal No. 307 
of 1961. 
M.C. Setalvad and A.N. Goyal. for the appellant. 
B.P. Maheshwari and O.P. Singh for the respon-
dent. 
· 
November 14, 1963. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
Gajendragadkar 
GAJENDRAGADKAR J.-The short question of law 
J. . 
which arises in this appeal by special leave relates to 
the construction of s. 25 FF of the Industrial Disputes 
Act, 1947 (No. 14 of 1947)(hereinafter called 'the Act') 
This question arises in this way. Between the appel-
lant, the Management of R.S. Madhoram & Sons 
(Agencies) (P) Ltd., and the respondents, its workmen 
an Industrial dispute arose in regard to the transfer 
of 57 employees from the management ofR.S. Madho-
ram & Sons, which was their origi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.