Judgment :- N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. ( 1 ) THE writ petition is a Union representing the workmen engaged by the second respondent. The second respondent is the Tamil nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board and it has a sub-division at Cheranrnadevi to execute the rural water supply work. The sub- division covers over 60,000 people by the Government sanctioned combined water supply scheme on a permanent basis. The scheme provides for employment and according to the petitioner, there is scope for employment both on temporary basis and on permanent basis. We are concerned with the termination of service of six watchmen, viz. , Sivalapiriyan chockalingam, Shanmugasundaram, shanmughanathan, Isakkinathan and Gopi and they were appointed as Watchmen. They received monthly salary of Rs. 330/-and these workmen were working with a periodical break for every 89 days. The services of the six workmen were terminated by order dated november 15, 1985 and after exchange of letters, the matter was referred to the first respondent, Labour Court in I. D. No. 169 of 1986. ( 2 ) THE Labour Court on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence rejected the contention of the TWAD Board that there was no termination and held that in fact there was a termination of service under Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as the fact ). The Labour court also did not approve the action of the twad Board periodically terminating the service of the workmen on the expiry of every 89 days. The Labour Court also noticed that there was no charge levelled against the workmen and there was no reason for the termination of service and after the termination of service, six other persons were employed. Therefore, the Labour Court recorded a finding that the termination of six watchmen was done intentionally and the Circular of the Chief engineer of the Second respondent Board could not override the provisions of the Industrial disputes Act. Therefore, the Labour Court recorded a finding that the termination of six watchmen was done intentionally and the Circular of the Chief engineer of the Second respondent Board could not override the provisions of the Industrial disputes Act. The Labour Court therefore came to the conclusion that it was the termination of service attracting the provisions of Section 2 (oo) of the Act and as there was non- compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the termination was held not legal, for the grant of relief, the Labour Court held that the workmen would be entitled to only back wages and compensation, but they would not be eligible for reinstatement as the sub-division was said to have been closed. ( 3 ) IT is significant to notice, in this connection that there was no evidence let in by the TWAD Board either oral or documentary before the Labour Court and the Labour Court seems to have come to the conclusion that the workmen would not be entitled to reinstatement of service on the basis of the evidence let in by the workmen to the effect sub-division was closed and all permanent employees in the sub-division were transferred. The finding of the Labour Court, as far as it went against the twad Board, has become final, as the order of the Labour Court has not been challenged by the TWAD Board. The writ petitioner has challenged the order of the Labour Court only on the limited question of denial of reinstatement of service. ( 4 ) THE TWAD Board has filed a counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the second respondent reiterated the averments made in the counter affidavit. The stand of the TWAD board as seen from the counter affidavit is that the sub-division was looking after the execution of rural water supply schemes and the sub-division was formed to execute the schemes in and around Cheranmadevi and the sub-division was also closed on May 31, 1990 soon after the completion of the scheme. The stand of the TWAD Board is that the above sub-division never formed as a permanent sub-division to execute the scheme permanently and maintaining the scheme permanently. It is stated that after the completion of the scheme, the scheme was handed over to the local bodies for maintenance of the scheme. The stand of the TWAD Board is that the above sub-division never formed as a permanent sub-division to execute the scheme permanently and maintaining the scheme permanently. It is stated that after the completion of the scheme, the scheme was handed over to the local bodies for maintenance of the scheme. It is stated that the Board in its proceedings dated April 9, 1990 decided to form one Divisional Stores for each division in the Division Head quarters and material transactions for the work would be carried out through the Divisional Stores only. It is stated that all available materials as on May, 1990 in various sub-divisions were transferred to the divisional Stores and hence, engagement of a watchman for watching materials at sub-divisional stores beyond the month of May, 1990 has not arisen and hence, the services of the watchmen were terminated. It is also stated that only N. M. R. personnel who put in 10 years of service are eligible to be appointed on permanent basis. ( 5 ) MR. K. Chandru, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that after the Labour Court finding that the termination of six watchmen from service was illegal, the Labour Court should have ordered reinstatement of service. According to the learned senior counsel, though the sub-division was closed, the work relating to the sub-division was transferred to the Divisional stores and since these workmen were working as watchmen, the Labour Court should have directed the absorption of these six watchmen in the Divisional Stores of the TWAD Board, either in that area or any other area where vacancies are available. The learned senior counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme court in the case of Gurmail Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. 1991 (1) SCC 189 : 1991-I1-LLJ-76. He also submitted that the twad Board was taking a stand initially that it was not an industry and this Court in the case of TWAD Board Employees Union v. TWAD board and Ors. 1993- I-LLJ-410 has held that the TWAD Board is also an industry within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and when the watchmen had put in work for more than 240 days, termination of service would amount to retrenchment and when there is non-compliance of provisions of section 25-F of the act, the workmen are liable to be reinstated. 1993- I-LLJ-410 has held that the TWAD Board is also an industry within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and when the watchmen had put in work for more than 240 days, termination of service would amount to retrenchment and when there is non-compliance of provisions of section 25-F of the act, the workmen are liable to be reinstated. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the second respondent, as already stated, reiterated the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the TWAD Board. ( 7 ) I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The Labour Court has recorded a finding that the termination of six watchmen would attract the provisions of Section 2 (oo) of the Act and the termination was not legal as the TWAD Board has not complied with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. The Labour Court also found that after the termination of six watchmen, six other persons were also employed. The Labour court ultimately came to the conclusion that the workmen would be entitled to back wages and compensation, but denied the benefit of reinstatement of service as the sub-division was closed in the month of May, 1990. The Labour court, in my view, has overlooked the important fact that the TWAD Board is a vast organisation and it has got a great employment potential at various stages and in various levels. The persons concerned in the industrial dispute are watchmen and it is not disputed that the work relating to the: sub-division was transferred to the Divisional stores. Though Cheranmadevi Rural Water supply Scheme came to an end on the execution of the scheme and handing over of the scheme to the local bodies for further maintenance, the twad Board still has other functions to perform. Since it is an organisation belonging to the Government, there is always a scope for employment. It is not disputed that all the permanent employees employed in the sub-division were transferred to the Divisional office. The TWAD Board has not let in any evidence to show that there is no scope for employing these workmen as watchmen in any other Divisional Office or sub-divisional offices of the TWAD Board. As a matter of fact, there is no evidence at all let in by the TWAD Board. The TWAD Board has not let in any evidence to show that there is no scope for employing these workmen as watchmen in any other Divisional Office or sub-divisional offices of the TWAD Board. As a matter of fact, there is no evidence at all let in by the TWAD Board. Hence, the denial of the benefit of reinstatement of service, after holding that there was violation of Section 25-F of the Act. on the facts of the case, in my view, is not justified in law. ( 8 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of gurmail Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. (supra) was dealing with a case where Tubewell operators in the Irrigation of the Public Works department of the Punjab State were transferred to Punjab State Tubewell Corporation and consequent to the decision to transfer all tubewell Operators, the posts sanctioned for the tube Well Operators in the Irrigation Branch had become redundant and they were abolished. Some of the Tubewell Operators were served with notice under Section 25-F of the Act and the question arose whether the Tubewell Operators who were retrenched were entitled to be absorbed in the Punjab State Tubewell Corporation. The decision of the Supreme Court makes an exception in the case of transfer of an undertaking by the State and the Supreme Court has held that the Court can review the arrangements between the State Government and the Corporation and issue appropriate directions and the following observations of the Supreme Court are relevant for the purpose of this Case:"leaving this out of account then, v/e may turn to a third category of cases which we think would also fall as on exception to the principle behind Sections 25-FF. This is where, as here, the transferor and/or transferee is a State or a State instrumentality, which is required to act fairly and not arbitrarily (see the recent pronouncement in Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corporation, 1990 (3) SCC 752 and the Court has a say as to whether the terms and conditions on which it proposes to hand over or take over an industrial undertaking embody the requisite of fairness in action" and could be upheld. We think that, certainly, in such circumstances it will be open to this Court to review the arrangement between the State Government and the Corporation and issue appropriate directions. We think that, certainly, in such circumstances it will be open to this Court to review the arrangement between the State Government and the Corporation and issue appropriate directions. Indeed, such directions could be issued even if the elements of the transfer in the present case fall short of a complete succession to the business or undertaking of state by the Corporation, as the principle ought to be applied is a constitutional principle flowing from the contours of article 14 of the Constitution which the state and Corporation are obliged to adhere to. We are making this observation because it was attempted to be argued on behalf of the State and Corporation that only certain assets of the State "industry" viz. , the tubewells, were taken over by the latter and nothing more. " ( 9 ) THE above decision of the Supreme Court makes an exception to the provisions of law contained in Section 25-FF of the Act. As a matter of fact, the closure of the Sub Divisional office does not amount to the transfer of an undertaking as contemplated in Section 25-FF of the Act. It would amount to the closure of an undertaking within the meaning of Section 25-FFF of the Act, as the TWAD Board had closed down the Sub Divisional Office at cheranmadevi. This Court has already held that the TWAD Board is an industry and when it has closed down one of its Sub-Divisional Offices, it can be taken as a closure of an undertaking and the workmen employed therein would be entitled to compensation under Section 25-FFF of the act. When the TWAD Board is regarded as State and where it closes a part of the undertaking, as observed by the Supreme Court in Gurmail singhs case, this Court can supervise the closure of the undertaking and can issue suitable directions regarding re-employment of the persons working herein. Since the services of watermen are continuously required in so far as the TWAD Board is concerned, as it has to procure materials for execution of its work and for the safety of the materials produced, the twad Board has to appoint watchmen, this court in supervising capacity, in my view, can give suitable directions to the TWAD Board to reemploy the workmen/watchmen instead of recruiting fresh hands for the purpose of safeguarding the materials. ( 10 ) IN the instant case, it is seen that the twad Board has not let in any evidence to show that it had surplus hands in other units also and hence, the TWAD Board was not in a position to absorb these six workmen in some other Sub Divisional Offices or the Divisional office of the TWAD Board. The Labour Court also recorded a finding that the permanent employees as of the Sub-Divisional Office at cheranmadevi were transferred to the divisional Office and some persons who are juniors to the workmen/watchmen were subsequently appointed. If that is the factual position, the Labour Court, in my view, should have given a direction to the TWAD Board to reinstate those watchmen in the TWAD board in any one of its units or in the divisional Office. Though the order of the labour Court may be correct that as there was closure of the unit, the workmen would be entitled to compensation only, but they would not be entitled to the relief of reinstatement, considering the position that the TWAD Board has a wide and varied activities throughout the state, the Labour Court should have given a direction to absorb the six watchmen on the cadre of the TWAD Board, in the absence of any contra evidence let in by the TWAD Board to prove that it was unable to absorb the retrenched employees. Since, the Labour Court has failed to do so, in my view, this Court has to direct the TWAD board to absorb these watchmen on the cadre of the TWAD Board. The order of the Labour Court was passed on April 2, 1991 and till that date, the labour Court has held, the workmen would be entitled to back wages and continuity of service till the date fixed by the Labour Court and also for compensation. I further hold that the six workmen would be entitled to be reinstated only from the date of this judgment with back wages from the date of the order of the Labour Court, and they would also be entitled to the benefit of continuity of service. The writ petition is allowed. The order of the Labour Court in so far as it went against the workmen concerned in this writ petition is quashed and the Rule NISI is made absolute. The writ petition is allowed. The order of the Labour Court in so far as it went against the workmen concerned in this writ petition is quashed and the Rule NISI is made absolute. However, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.