MANAGEMENT OF EID PARRY INDIA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the sake of convenience, the transferee Management is referred to as EID Parry, while the transferor is referred to as NBF Alloys. All the seven Trade Unions, who are parties hereto, are referred to as the workmen.

(2.) While EID Parry India Limited (EID Parry) is a Company engaged in manufacture of Sugar, etc., Nava Bharath Ferro Alloys Limited (NBF Alloys) is a Company, owning two sugar mills at Andhra Pradesh and another at Pugalur, Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu.

(3.) Mr.Anand Gopalan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of EID Parry, contended that the Tribunal, having found the transfer of undertaking not to be sham and nominal, but bona fide and genuine, did not have the authority to order for notional re-employment of the workers, in the absence of any statutory provisions. According to him, after inclusion of Sec. 25FF in the ID Act, such decision is not bestowed upon the Tribunal. In order to substantiate that the transfer of undertaking was genuine, he relied upon the agreement of transfer, whereby both the lands and the machineries were bona fidely taken over by the transferee company and the requirement of Sec. 25FF of the ID Act, with regard to notice pay and compensation, was also duly complied with. The workmen, having received the notice pay and compensation, are estopped from challenging the transfer of undertaking. It is also his contention that the learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate that there was no scope for the Tribunal to order for notional re-employment, when a specific finding has been rendered by holding that the transfer was not a sham and nominal one.