WORKMEN OF BRAHMPUTRA TEA ESTATE, REPRESENTED BY ASSAM CHAH KARAMCHARI SANGHA, DIBRUGARH versus THE INCOMING MANAGEMENT OF BRAHMPUTRA TEA ESTATE & ORS.

Citation: [1968] 1 S.C.R. 626 · Decided: 25-09-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

626 
WORKMEN OF BRAHMPUTRA TEA ESTATE, REPRE· A 
SENTED BY ASSAM CHAH KARAMCHARI SANGHA, 
DIBRUGARH 
v. 
THE INCOMING MANAGEMENT OF BRAHMPUTUA TEA 
ESTATE & ORS. 
B 
September 25, 1967 
(M. H!DAYATULLAH, V. BHARGAVA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.) 
Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947). ss. 18 and 25 F-SeTvices 
terminated by Receiver appointed by court-Reference of dispute- C 
PuTChase of Company-Purchase. not party-Liability of purchaser-
Reference if infructuous-Duty of Labour Court to issue notice. 
On reference of an industrial dispute, the Labour 
Cour~ took 
the view that the services of the workmen concerned had been ter·, 
minated, under instructions of the Receiver of the Company appoint· 
ed in a suit long before the first respondent became owner of the 
company; that the Receiver in possession was the only party im· D 
pleaded and the new management, viz., the first respondent had not 
been brought on record, nor was it a party to the reference, made by 
the State Government; that the purchase of the company, by the 
first respondent, did not show that the latter had taken over any 
liabilities of the previous management, \vith regard to the claim Of 
the workmen; and that there had been no purchase of the goodwill 
of the company. On these grounds, the Labour Court held that no 
relief could be granted, as against the first respondent, and that the E 
reference itself had become infructuous. In appeal to this Court, the 
workmen-appellants contended that (i) the view of the Labour Court 
that the first respondent was not liable for tbe claims of workmen, 
was erroneous; and (ii) even iI it be held that the first respondent 
was not liable, the Labour Court, which had ample jurisdiction, in 
this regard, should have issued notice. either to the Receiver ap-
pointed in the suit. or the Official Liquidator, or to both of them and 
proceeded to investigate and adjudicate upon the claims of the work- F 
men. 
HELD: (i I The first respondent was not liable to answer any of 
the claims of the workmen. He was not in the picture when the or-
der terminating their service was made, nor when the order referring 
the dispute to the Labour Court was made. Having due regard to 
the various recitals in the sale deed and considered in the light of G 
the principles laid down by this Court. in Anakapalla Cooperative, 
Agricultural & Industrial Societu Ltd. v. WoTkmen. the first respon-
dent was not the successor-in-interest of the Company. 
What was 
purchased. by the first respondent. was only the equity of redemp-
tion in a part of the assets of the Tea Compan_v, with respect to which 
the Official Liquidator was still functioning, Even on the basis that 
the first respondent was considered to be a person, to whom the 
ownership of the undertaking has been transferred, the claims of the B 
workmen had to be considered, as against the Company. in accord-
ance with s. 25 FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, when its pro-
viso could not be invoked. Section 25F was in force when the ser-
vices of the workmen were terminated and s. 25FF had come into 
effect jong before the purchase by the first respondent. [632G-633F] 
\ 
WORKMEN v MANAGEMENT 'fEA ESTATE {Vaidiatingmn J.) 
627 
'I 
A 
Anakapalla C~perative Agricultural and Industrial Societu Ltd. 
v. Its Workmen, (1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 730, followed. 
(ii) Even after negativing the claims of the workmen. as against 
the first respondent, the Labour Court should not have merely closed 
the proceedings, by holding that the reference had lapsed. On the 
other hand. the Labour Court should have issued notices to the Re-t 
ceiver. or the Liquidator or to both, and, in their presence, should 
B have considered the question as to whether the workmen were en-
titled to claim relief. In fact, the order of reference also clearly 
showed that the Labour Court had full jurisdiction to consider as to 
whether the termination of the services of the workmen, was justi-
fied, and whether they were entitled to either reinstatement, or any 
other relief. in lieu thereof. [634B-D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 752 of 
c 1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated february 18, 
1965 of the Labour Court. Assam in Reference No. 38 of 1962. 
H. R. Gokha/e, G. L. Sangh! and K. P. Gupta, for the appel 
!ants. 
D 
S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-General and D. N. Mukherjee, for r~. 
pondent No. 1. 
M. M. Kshatriya, G. S. Chatterjee for P. K. Bose, respondentl!o 
Nos. 2 and 3. 
The Judgmen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.