Judgment :- Sreedharan. J1. Writ appeal arise out of the judgment in O.P. No. 9088 of 1993. Respondents 6, 8 and 9 in the said Original Petition are the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 1545 of 1993 and Writ Appeal No. 1554 of 1993 is at the instance of the 7th respondent. The appellants challenge the direction given by the learned single Judge to the police officers to ensure that no obstruction are caused to the running of foreign liquor shop No. 129 of Njarackal Range by Respondents 6 and 7 and their members and associates. Respondents 6 and 7 are two trade unions of Abkari workers. In O.P. No. 5543 of 1994, licensee of Shop No. 129 of Njarackal Range for the year 1994-1995 seeks police protection for carrying on the business without any obstruction from the members of Respondents 6 and 7 trade unions. Since the issues that arise for consideration in these matters are one and the same, we consider it advantageous to dispose of these mattes by a common judgment. 2. For understanding the true nature of the dispute between the parties, it is necessary to refer to the facts alleged by the petitioner in O.P. No. 9088 of 1993. It is as follows : Petitioner along with another took in auction the right to vend Indian made foreign liquor from Shop No. 129 of Njarackal Range for the period from 1-4-1993 to 31-3-1994. In addition to the bid amount of Rs. 8, 02, 000/-, a sum of Rs. 50, 000/- was remitted for getting permission for retail sale of foreign liquor in the shop. On getting licence for the above purpose, business was started with petitioner's workers. Workers of former licensee unauthorisedly and illegally trespassed into the shop, obstructed petitioner's workers from vending foreign liquor and claimed that they are entitled to work in the said shop. Altogether there are twelve workers appointed by Respondents 6 and 7 to do the work in the petitioner's liquor shop without here consent. Respondents 8 and 9 claimed the post of Cashier and Manager respectively in the shop. Members of Respondents 6 and 7 were the workers of the former licensee. Their engagement by the former licensee could have been only for one year. As their services stood terminated on the expiry of the period of licence, they cannot claim any right to work under the subsequent licensee. Members of Respondents 6 and 7 were the workers of the former licensee. Their engagement by the former licensee could have been only for one year. As their services stood terminated on the expiry of the period of licence, they cannot claim any right to work under the subsequent licensee. An employee who was engaged for a term has to vacate the employment on the expiry of the term. Petitioner is a licensee for the period from 1-4-1993 to 31-3-1994. So, the previous employees cannot claim any right of employment under the petitioner. Respondents 8 and 9 forcibly took the post Cashier and Manager of the liquor shop of which the petitioner is the licensee. They are illegally collecting the sale amount and are not giving proper accounts. Petitioner is not in a position to carry on the sale of Indian made foreign liquor in the shop because of the atrocities committed by Respondents 6 to 9 and their sympathisers. On these averments they approached this Court inter alia praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the police officers to stop the illegal and unauthorised acts of the members of Respondents 6 and 7 trade unions. 3. Detailed counter affidavits were filed by the respondents. In the counter affidavit filed by Respondents 6, 8 and 9, the stand taken was that members of their trade union were workers under the previous contractor and therefore they are entitled to be appointed by the petitioner, who is the licensee for the succeeding year. It was their contention that when one contractor is succeeded by another, the successor is obliged to engage the workers who were employed by the previous contractor. It was contended that employees engaged during the year 1992-93 have a right to continue in service when a new licensee acquires the right to vend liquor for the subsequent year, namely 1993-94. The service of worked under the previous contractor cannot be terminated by the new licensee with a view to engage new workers of his choice. 6th respondent even went to the extent of stating that Respondents 8 and 9 are entitled to continue as Cashier and manager of the shop. 7th respondent, the other trade union of Abkari Workers, in the counter affidavit virtually supported the contentions raised by the 6th respondent. 6th respondent even went to the extent of stating that Respondents 8 and 9 are entitled to continue as Cashier and manager of the shop. 7th respondent, the other trade union of Abkari Workers, in the counter affidavit virtually supported the contentions raised by the 6th respondent. But, it did not support the view of the 6th respondent that the management of the shop and the cash collection should be entrusted with the workers attached to the shop. It was stated by 7th respondent that employees in charge of cash and management of the shop would not become permanent workers in the shop to be in charge of cash and management. It was the contention of the 7th respondent that workers who are engaged in the shop by the prior contractor for works other than collection of cash and general management are entitled to be engaged by the successor contractor as well. 4. From the counter affidavits filed by Respondents 6 to 9, it appears that the stand taken by them is that the workers are attached to foreign liquor shops and they are to be engaged by the successor licensees as well. The short question that arises for consideration by us is whether such a right can be claimed by the employees engaged by a licensee of a foreign liquor shop. 5. The main argument advanced by the appellants is that members of the 6th and 7th respondent unions were workers attached to foreign liquor shop no. 129 of Njarackal Range and so they are attached to that shop. Licensees of that shop are to engage those workers and they have no right to refuse to engage them and employ their own workers for carrying on the business in the said shop. In support of this argument, learned counsel relies on the provisions of the Kerala Abkari Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 1989 and the Kerala Abkari Workers' Welfare Fund Scheme, 1990. The Act and the Scheme provide for continuity of employment to the workers and payment of gratuity, pension, etc. If successive licensees are not engaging the employees with continuity in service, the provisions of the Act and the scheme will be defeated. So, for successful implementation of the provisions of the Act and the Scheme, successive licensees should be held to be bound to engage the workers attached to respective shops. 6. If successive licensees are not engaging the employees with continuity in service, the provisions of the Act and the scheme will be defeated. So, for successful implementation of the provisions of the Act and the Scheme, successive licensees should be held to be bound to engage the workers attached to respective shops. 6. "Abkari worker" has been defined in the Kerala Abkari Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 1989 as any person who is employed for wages in connection with the storing, bottling, transport or sale of liquor and who gets his wages directly or indirectly from the employer. "Employer" has been defined to mean any person who employs whether by himself or through any other persons one or more Abkari workers and includes the licensee under the Abkari Act. The Act also provides for contribution to the fund at the rate of ten per cent of the wages payable to each of the Abkari worker and the Abkari workers contribution shall also be equal to the same payable by the employer. The contribution payable by the employer should be paid on or before 5th of every month and no employer is entitled to reduce the wages of any abkari workers to whom the Scheme applies in order to reduce his liability for payment of the contribution. The above provisions of the Act shows that the licensee has to contribute towards the Welfare Fund ten per cent of the wages of the employee engaged by him. 7. The Kerala Abkari Workers' Welfare Fund Scheme, 1990 was notified as S.R.O. No. 659/90. "Continuous Service" of an employee has been defined therein top mean uninterrupted service. Such uninterrupted service includes service which is interrupted by sickness, accidents, authorised leave, strike which is not illegal or the cessation of work not due to the fault of the workers. Periods not exceeding three months in between the recruiting of one employment and another also will be treated as "Continuous Service". " Superannuation" of a worker has been defined to mean the termination of the service of a worker by the employer when the worker attains the age of sixty. A worker who has completed three months continuous service is entitled to membership of the scheme. Employer is bound to pay his contribution and the contribution in respect of the worker who are members at the first instance. A worker who has completed three months continuous service is entitled to membership of the scheme. Employer is bound to pay his contribution and the contribution in respect of the worker who are members at the first instance. On failure, it is stated that the said amount fill carry interest at twelve per cent per annum. Every worker who is entitled to be a member of the Fund should register his name as a beneficiary of the Fund in the register maintained by the Chief Welfare Fund Inspector or any officer authorised by him in that behalf. For getting such registration, the worker should apply in Form No. 2. In that form, he has to give details of the total service rendered by him on the date of application. He should also furnish the name, address and register number of the establishment where he is working. Employer on his part should send returns in Form No. 5 Showing the particulars of workers who are entitled to be registered and who had left the service during the preceding month before the close of every month. A member of the fund or his dependent shall be eligible for an ex-gratia payment upto a maximum of Rs. 5, 000/-. Likewise, provisions are made for financial assistance to the workers. A worker is entitled to get gratuity from the gratuity fund at the rate of fifty per cent of the average monthly wages for each completed year of service, subject to a maximum of twenty months wages. So also a member of the Fund is entitled to pension. An Abkari worker, as per the scheme, is entitled to advance for purchase or construction of dwelling house. But, in order to claim that benefit, he should have completed at least three years continuous membership in the fund. 8. The above-mentioned provisions of the Abkari Workers' Welfare Fund Act and Scheme make it clear that an Abkari worker is to have continuity of service for claiming the benefits provided therein. An Abkari worker who gets such a continuity of service alone will get the full benefit of the Act and Scheme. Therefore, can he contend that he is attached to the foreign liquor shop and the successive licensees should engage him? 9. An Abkari worker who gets such a continuity of service alone will get the full benefit of the Act and Scheme. Therefore, can he contend that he is attached to the foreign liquor shop and the successive licensees should engage him? 9. Chapter VI of Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules deals with special conditions applicable to licensees for the privilege of vending toddy in independent shops. Rule 7 (9) therein imposes certain conditions on the licensees in order to ensure that real benefits accrued to the tappers. Sub-clause (i) of Rule 7(9) states that the tappers attached to a particular shop shall consistent with the requirements of the shop be given preference in the matter of employment in that shop unless it be that there are sufficient reasons to the contrary, such as conviction of the tappers under the Abkari Act or their provided misconduct. This provision enjoins the licensee of toddy shop to engage the tappers who are attached to that particular engage such employees. If he wants to disengage anyone, he must show sufficient reason for the said purpose as contemplated by that rule. This provisions show that the tappers are attached to the toddy shop. Can we spell out such an attachment of an Abkari worker to a foreign liquor shop? No provision in the Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules relating to foreign liquor shops contain a provision similar to that mentioned above. No provision in the Kerala Abkari Workers' Welfare Fund Act or the Scheme, which provide for such an attachment of the worker to any foreign liquor shop, has been brought to our notice. 10. Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Scheme, 1969, framed under the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1969, provided for registration of the employees under the Scheme. Clause 33 of the Scheme provides for registration of the employees who are entitled to be members of the Scheme. Sub-clause (2)(a) states that the Chief Welfare Fund Inspector shall take immediate steps to determine the provisions services of every employee registered under the Scheme and shall enter the service in the service register maintained for the purpose. This provision is followed by an Explanation. Sub-clause (2)(a) states that the Chief Welfare Fund Inspector shall take immediate steps to determine the provisions services of every employee registered under the Scheme and shall enter the service in the service register maintained for the purpose. This provision is followed by an Explanation. It reads :- "Every employee for the purpose of registration under Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be considered to be employed in the particular toddy shop or premises in which he is working and any change in the personnel of the contractor vending toddy in his shop or premises shall not affect the employment status of his employee."* This provision, according to us, makes it abundantly clear that employees covered by the Kerala Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Scheme, 1969 are attached to the toddy shops and the successive contractors have to engage them. Such a provision is conspicuously absent in the Kerala Abkari Workers' Welfare Fund Act and the Scheme framed thereunder. So it seems that the Abkari worker, if has continuous service in a shop, will be entitled to the benefits of the Scheme. But, he cannot insist on his engagement by the successive licensees.This is a lacuna in the Act and the Scheme. It is not for this Court to make good the same. As the provisions now stand, licensees are having no legal obligation to have the employee engaged by the previous licensees to be continued. In K. C. Chacko v. State & Ors. 1992 II CLR 595, this Court took the view that a licensee who gets the right to vend foreign liquor can be considered to have the right only for the year for which he bid the shop in auction. On the expiry of the said period, he ceases to have any connection whatsoever with the shop. If such a licensee engages an employee in his shop, that employment can only be for the term of the licence. An employee who is engaged for a term has to vacate the employment on the expiry of the term. When he vacates the employment or his service is terminated on the expiry of the term, that termination will not amount to retrenchment as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act. The successor licensee is not, as the law now sands, bound to renew the contract of employment and to engage the Abkari worker. When he vacates the employment or his service is terminated on the expiry of the term, that termination will not amount to retrenchment as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act. The successor licensee is not, as the law now sands, bound to renew the contract of employment and to engage the Abkari worker. According to us, this statement of the law holds good. 11. Workers engaged in foreign liquor Shop No. 129 of Njarackal range during the period upto 31-3-1993 cannot, therefore, compel the licensee for the year 1993-94 to engage them. If the licensee of 1993-94 engages any of those employees, they will have the continuity of service and will get the benefits under the Kerala Abkari Workers' Welfare Fund Act and the Scheme. In this view of the matter, the action of Respondents 6 and 7 to thrust upon the petitioner their members as the employees in the shop is against law. Viewed in this light, the order passed by the learned single Judge does not call for any interference. It, therefore, follows that writ appeals are devoid of any substance and they are only to be dismissed. We do so. 12. O.P. No. 5543/1994 is by the licensee for the year 1994-95. During 1994-95 the licensee for the privilege of possession of Indian made foreign liquor for sale to public specifically states that the sale must only be in sealed bottled without the privilege of consumption on the premises. So a foreign liquor licensee should sell the liquor in sealed bottles to the public, the sale cannot be of any quantity less than 180 ml., and the liquor sold should not be allowed to consume on the premises. Such a licensee is to stock the sealed bottles in his premises and to sell them to the customers. For the said purpose, according to the petitioner, he need have only a Salesman and a Cashier. It is his further case that he cannot be compelled to engage workmen who were engaged by the previous licensees. Respondents 6 and 7, the trade unions, want to have their twelve members engaged by the petitioner. Taking into consideration the nature of the license issued for the year 1994-95 and the amendment brought out by Foreign Liquor (Amendment) Rules, 1994, it cannot be held that the able workers are having a right to get employment under the petitioner. Respondents 6 and 7, the trade unions, want to have their twelve members engaged by the petitioner. Taking into consideration the nature of the license issued for the year 1994-95 and the amendment brought out by Foreign Liquor (Amendment) Rules, 1994, it cannot be held that the able workers are having a right to get employment under the petitioner. Accordingly we hold that the claims put forward by Respondents 6 and 7 are untenable. Petitioner is entitled to carry on his business without any obstruction being causes by Respondent 6 and 7 and their followers and sympathisers. If any obstruction is caused, that has to be removed by Respondents 3 and 4, who are Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam Rural and Circle Inspector of Police, Njarackal. We order accordingly. In view of what has been stated above, we dismiss both writ appeals and dispose of O.P. No. 5543/94 as stated above. Parties are directed to suffer their costs.