JUDGMENT - D.R. DHANUKA, J.:---By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to impugn an award dated 27th October, 1993 made by the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra, Bombay, in Reference (IT) No. 40 of 1984. 2. By the said impugned award, the Industrial Tribunal has held that the retrenchment of the services of respondent Nos. 1 to 6 by Hind Cycle Ltd., on various dates referred to in the petition i.e. on or about 21st October, 1975 was void ab initio and non est for non compliance of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 etc. By the said award, the Industrial Tribunal has declared that the workmen concerned are entitled to the benefit of continued employment and back wages etc. from the date of their purported termination onwards in view of the provisions contained in section 13(1) of Hind Cycles Ltd. and Sen-Raleigh Ltd. (Nationalisation) Act, 1980. By the said award, the Industrial Tribunal has directed the petitioner to pay all such benefits to the concerned employees who are alive and also pay monetary benefits of back wages of the deceased employees Shri Gopal G. Walawalkar and Shri Gopal Baburao Keluskar to their widow and/or other legal heirs. 3. The learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 has not supported the said award in so far as it directs payment of back wages from the date of purported retrenchment until the appointed date i.e. 15th October, 1980 under Act No. 70 of 1980. The said impugned award is modified to the effect that the concerned workmen shall be entitled to benefit of continued employment and back wages and other benefits for the commencing from 15th October, 1980 from the petitioner and not for the period prior thereto. The respondent Nos. 1 to 6 shall have to enforce their claim for back wages for the earlier period against the company by making appropriate application before the Commissioner of Payments appointed under section 15 of the Act. Apart from the above referred modification, the impugned award shall have to be confirmed as there is no merit in the petition. 4. On 21st October, 1975 services of respondent Nos. 1 to 6 workmen were purported to be terminated/retrenched by Hind Cycles Ltd. without following the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Apart from the above referred modification, the impugned award shall have to be confirmed as there is no merit in the petition. 4. On 21st October, 1975 services of respondent Nos. 1 to 6 workmen were purported to be terminated/retrenched by Hind Cycles Ltd. without following the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Tribunal has rightly held that the said termination/retrenchment shall have to be treated as void ab initio and non est for all purposes. 5. On 27th December, 1980 the Hind Cycles Limited and Sen-Raleigh Ltd. (Nationalisation) Act, 1980 was passed. Prior thereto the management of the undertaking of Hind Cycle Limited was taken over by the Central Government, under the provisions of Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. Under section 3 of the said Act, the undertaking of Hind Cycles Limited and the right, title and interest of the company in relation to all the assets of the undertaking referred to therein stood transferred to and vested in the Central Government. Section 6 of the said Act empower the Central Government to direct vesting of the undertaking of the said Act in a Government Company by issue of a notification. In pursuance of the said power, the said undertaking has stood vested in the National Bicycle Corporation of India Limited, a 100% Government Company, i.e. the petitioner in this petition. 6. The question to be decided in this writ petition is as to whether the workmen concerned became the employees of the Central Government or of the petitioner by virtue of the provisions contained in section 13(1) of Act 70 of 1980. I agree with the view taken by the Industrial Tribunal that all workmen employed in the undertaking of Hind Cycles Limited automatically became the workmen of the Central Government and/or the petitioner with effect from the appointed date. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 were not actually in employment of Hind Cycles Limited on the appointed day as their services were purported to be terminated by Hind Cycles Ltd. in the year 1975 though illegally. It is not possible for the Court to accept this submission as the purported termination of service by Hind Cycles Limited or the purported retrenchment of respondent Nos. 1 to 6 is rightly declared as non est by the Industrial Tribunal. The respondent Nos. It is not possible for the Court to accept this submission as the purported termination of service by Hind Cycles Limited or the purported retrenchment of respondent Nos. 1 to 6 is rightly declared as non est by the Industrial Tribunal. The respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are deemed to have continued to be in employment of Hind Cycles Limited until the appointed day. On the appointed day, the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 became the employees/workmen of the Central Government or of the petitioner by virtue of the provisions contained in section 13(1) of the Act. 7. Section 5(1) of the Act provides that the company i.e. Hind Cycles Ltd. shall be liable to discharge all prior liabilities for the period prior to 15th October, 1980. The monetary liabilities of the company to pay back wages for the period prior to 15th October, 1980 are undoubtedly of the company and the same are undoubtedly enforceable by making of claim against the Commissioner of Payments. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the purported termination or purported retrenchment of services of respondent Nos. 1 to 6 was done by the Hind Cycles Limited and the petitioner cannot be held liable to pay back wages even in respect of post nationalisation period. This argument suffers from over simplification and is not acceptable to the Court. If the retrenchment was void ab initio, it follows that the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are deemed to be the employees of Hind Cycles Limited on the appointed day and by virtue of the provisions contained in section 13(1) of the Act, the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 became the employees of the Central Government and/or the petitioner. It matters not that such liability has arisen by reason of illegal termination of services of concerned workmen. Since the purported termination/retrenchment is held to be void ab initio, legal consequences following therefrom must follow. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also relies on section 25 of the Act of 70 of 1980. The said section provides that the provisions of Act 70 of 1980 shall have over riding effect over other laws. Section 31(1) of the Act must therefore have an over riding effect over other laws. 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Nos. The said section provides that the provisions of Act 70 of 1980 shall have over riding effect over other laws. Section 31(1) of the Act must therefore have an over riding effect over other laws. 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 were not entitled to seek separate reference for adjudication in view of their earlier claims for reinstatement or back wages having already been decided by the Labour Court as obvious from perusal of annexures A to F to the petition. I do not agree. The petitioner was not a party to the said reference. The said earlier awards were made against Hind Cycle Limited by virtue of old references made by the appropriate authority in the years 1976 and 1978. At that time the undertaking of Hind Cycles Limited was not nationalised. The respondent Nos. 1 to 6 were therefore entitled to make their claim against the petitioner relying on the provisions contained in section 13(1) of the Act 70 of 1980 and seek a separate independent reference in respect thereof. The reference made was therefore maintainable in law. 10. The facts are set out in the impugned award with reasonable accuracy. I am in agreement with the view taken by the Industrial Tribunal except in respect of the pre-nationalisation monetary liability in respect whereof the award is already modified in view of the concession made by the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 6. 11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to the fact that a winding up petition is pending against the petitioner in this Court being Company Petition No. 130 of 1994. It is not disputed that the petitioner is wholly owned Government company. It is most surprising that the workmen are stranded by reason of non-payment of their lawful dues by the Central Government or the petitioner. At any rate, no winding up order is still passed by the Company Court. Pendency of the said company petition does not preclude the writ Court from disposing of this petition in accordance with law. It is also the duty of Central Government to honour its committment to the workmen. 12. At any rate, no winding up order is still passed by the Company Court. Pendency of the said company petition does not preclude the writ Court from disposing of this petition in accordance with law. It is also the duty of Central Government to honour its committment to the workmen. 12. Subject to the modification in the impugned award in respect of the monetary liabilities pertaining to payment of back wages for the period prior to 15th October, 1980 as indicated above, the petition is summarily dismissed as there is no merit in the petition. The petitioner is directed to comply with the impugned award within one week from today in view of the urgency of the situation. 13. Issue of certified copy expedited. Petition dismissed. *****