Judgment 1. This writ petition is filed against an award by the Industrial Tribunal, Patna, on reference made to it under Sec. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The industrial dispute under reference was between the management of S.K.G. Sugar Limited Distillery Branch, Mirganj, Gopalaganj and their workmen represented by three different unions and it arose from retrenchment of some workmen working in the Distillery Section. It is not in dispute that at the time of the retrenchment the distillery at Mirganj was under the management and ownership of the petitioner-company which was then known as S.K.G Sugar, Ltd., and it is also not in dispute that the retrenchment was made by the petitioner-company which was the employer of the concerned workmen at that time. However, shortly before the dispute was referred to the Tribunal by notification, dated July 11, 1981, the establishment to which the dispute related was transferred by the petitioner-company to another company, namely, United Distilleries (Private) Ltd. (respondent 6) on lease for a period of ten years by lease deed, dated March 30, 1981. Long before the expiry of the period of lease, the two companies entered into an agreement for sale of the establishment in question and the sale deed was finally executed by the petitioner-company on June 5, 1983 in favour of respondent 6 (hereinafter referred to as the transferee company). 2. Further during the pendency of the reference, Ordinance No. 38 of 1985 was promulgated on January 13, 1985 which was later replaced by the Bihar Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1985. Under the provisions of the Ordinance (later replaced by the Act) the sugar mills of the petitioner-company taken over by the State Government and were later transferred to the Bihar State Sugar Corporation constituted under Sec. 2(c) of the Act. 3. In view of the aforesaid developments taking place during the pendency of the reference both the transferee company United Distilleries (Private), Ltd. (respondent 6) and Bihar State Sugar Corporation, Ltd., were added as parties to the reference at the instance of the workmen and were summoned by the Tribunal to appear in the reference before it. 4. In the award coming under challenge the Tribunal held and found that the retrenchment of the concerned workmen was bad and illegal. 4. In the award coming under challenge the Tribunal held and found that the retrenchment of the concerned workmen was bad and illegal. The Tribunal further held that the resultant legal liabilities would lie with the petitioner-company and the transferee company and Bihar State Sugar Corporation, Ltd., need not be called upon to bear the liabilities arising from the illegal retrenchment of the concerned workmen. Further, having regard to the present circumstances of the petitioner-company the Tribunal proceeded to hold that an award of reinstatement of the concerned workmen may not be practicable and enforceable. It accordingly, gave an award for payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement and directed the petitioner company to pay to each of the concerned workmen a lump sum amount of Rs. 75,000 as compensation both for past and future services. The Tribunal further directed that failure to pay the amount of compensation within three months from the date of pronouncement of the award would attract interest at 12 per cent per annum till the date of payment. The petitioner-company has not paid any compensation to the concerned workmen as directed by the tribunal. 5. Sri Y.V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, though at the beginning made a feeble attempt to assail the finding of the Tribunal regarding the retrenchment of the concerned workmen being bad and illegal, in the end he confined his challenge to the award only in so far as it held the petitioner-company, and not the other two parties later added to the reference, legally obliged to bear the liabilities arising from the illegal retrenchments. 6. The material facts of the case may be stated briefly as follows. About 270 workmen of Mirganj Distillery Section (hereinafter referred to as the establishment) were retrenched by the petitioner-company with effect from May 2, 1977. In protest against the retrenchment a joint petition, signed by about 400 workmen, was submitted on May 3, 1977. This led to conciliation proceeding in course of which the petitioner-company reinstated 131 orkmen between May 17, 1977 to June 6, 1977. It, however, refused to reinstate six of the retrenched workmen. According to the case of the workmen, the refusal of the petitioner-company to take back those six workmen was due to their legitimate trade union activities. This led to conciliation proceeding in course of which the petitioner-company reinstated 131 orkmen between May 17, 1977 to June 6, 1977. It, however, refused to reinstate six of the retrenched workmen. According to the case of the workmen, the refusal of the petitioner-company to take back those six workmen was due to their legitimate trade union activities. Finally, the Government referred to the Tribunal the dispute between the petitioner-company and its workmen on the questions of- (i) the retrenchment of the six workmen; and (ii) the continuity of service and entitlement to other reliefs of the 131 workmen. The reference, which was registered before the Tribunal as Reference No. 11 of 1978 was made by notification, dated August 31, 1978. According to the workmen, as soon as the notification making reference to the Tribunal was received by the petitioner-company, it once again retrenched with effect from September 8, 1978, 102 out of the 131 workmen whom it had earlier taken back during the period May 17, 1977 to June 6, 1977 and who were also covered by Reference No. 11 of 1978. 7. This fresh retrenchment of 102 workmen gave rise to another industrial dispute. In course of the conciliation proceedings the petitioner-company re-employed 13 workmen; but its refusal to take back the remaining 89 workmen led to the present reference by notification dated July 11, 1981. The award made in this reference, which was registered before the Industrial Tribunal as Reference No. 43 of 1981, comes under challenge in this writ petition. 8. It may be noted here that long after making the disputed retrenchments the petitioner-company on February 24, 1981 sent notice to the State Government seeking permission for retrenchment of the workmen as required under Section 25-N(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Under Secretary to the Government in the Department of Labour made certain queries in this regard by letter, dated June 12, 1981, and finally by letter, dated July 11, 1981, the State Government communicated to the petitioner-company its refusal to grant permission for retrenchment. By a notification issued on the same day the dispute was referred for adjudication to the Tribunal. By a notification issued on the same day the dispute was referred for adjudication to the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal the petitioner-company took the plea that so far as compliance with the provisions of Sec. 25-N was concerned, permission for retrenchment would be deemed to have been granted as the Government failed to give any reply to the notice sent by the petitioner-company within three months of the date of service of he notice. The Tribunal has rejected the plea and, in my opinion rightly, first on the ground that there was no satisfactory evidence regarding the date and the manner of service of notice under Sec. 25-N(1)(a) upon the State Government and secondly on the ground that the notice which the petitioner-company claimed to have sent to the State Government on February 24, 1981 was not contemporaneous and part of the same transaction but it was sent about two and a half years after the disputed retrenchment and was only a belated coverup attempt, presumably after the question of notice under Sec. 25-N(1)(a) was raised in course of the conciliation proceedings. 9. As noted above, the petitioner-company took back 13 workmen but refused to reinstate the rest of the retrenched workmen. As a result of the refusal of the petitioner-company to take back the remaining 89 workmen the present reference was made by the Government by notification, dated July 11, 1981, which was registered before the Industrial Tribunal as Reference No. 43 of 1981. The terms of this reference are as follows: "Whether the retrenchment of 89 workmen by the management of S.K.G. Sugar, Ltd., Distillery Section, Mirganj, is justified? If not, whether they are entitled to reinstatement and/or any other relief?" 10. Another relevant fact, admitted by the parties, is that during the pendency of the reference, the petitioner-company offered alternative employment which was accepted by some of the workmen and, thus, at the time of the final disposal there were 61 workmen in respect of whom the industrial dispute remained subsisting. 11. Before proceeding further it would be appropriate here to recall the earlier Reference No. 11 of 1978 which arose from the retrenchment of a number of workmen made by the petitioner- company on May 2, 1977. 11. Before proceeding further it would be appropriate here to recall the earlier Reference No. 11 of 1978 which arose from the retrenchment of a number of workmen made by the petitioner- company on May 2, 1977. It is noted above that the workmen under reference in the present dispute were the same who were retrenched on May 2, 1977 but were later taken back in employment during the conciliation proceedings in connection with the dispute. They were, however, once again retrenched after the notification was issued making Reference No. 11 of 1978. One of the issues in that reference was regarding the continuity of service and entitlement of other reliefs to those workmen. It is, thus, evident that Reference No. 11 of 1978 was not only between the same parties but the matter directly and substantially in issue in that reference was also directly and substantially in issue in the present dispute. The earlier reference was also before the same Tribunal. In Reference No. 11 of 1978 the Tribunal made its award on: September 22, 1980 holding that the retrenchment of the workmen with effect from May 2, 1997 was bad and illegal and hence, the management (the petitioner-company) was liable to make payment to the concerned workmen of their wages and allowances from the date of their retrenchment till they were reinstated as directed in that award. In the present case the Tribunal has held with reference to its earlier award in Reference No. 11 of 1978 that by virtue of the earlier award the workmen under the present reference must be held to be in continuous and uninterrupted service since, their appointment in 1974 within the meaning of Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. The finding of the Tribunal which appears to this Court to be unassailable is as follows: "Thus, all the 89 workmen concerned in this case remained in continuous employment since 1974 by virtue of the award (Exhibit W/2) and they continued to work upto September 8, 1978 when they were retrenched for which this reference has been made. So it is established that the concerned 89 workmen were in continuous service since 1974 till the date of their retrenchment for which the reference has been made." 12. So it is established that the concerned 89 workmen were in continuous service since 1974 till the date of their retrenchment for which the reference has been made." 12. Coming back to the present reference, it may be noted that before the Tribunal the main dispute relating to the validity of the retrenchment of the concerned workmen appears to have been contested only by the petitioner-company and not by respondents 6 and 7 later added as parties to the reference. 13. As has by now become routine, the petitioner-company first tried to challenge the competence and validity of the reference itself and assailed the reference notification as being bad and illegal on different grounds. There was no substance in any of the pleas raised by the petitioner-company for assailing the reference and the Tribunal rightly upheld the validity of the reference, rejecting the points raised by the petitioner-company after considering and discussing them one by one. 14. Proceeding to the merits of the dispute the Tribunal found and held that the concerned workmen were working continuously and without interruption since 1974 till the date of their retrenchment; that the workmen were employed to perform work of a permanent nature and they were not casual workmen on daily wages; that they were paid wages on monthly basis, the employees contribution to the provident fund was deducted from their respective monthly wages and annual bonus was also paid to them. The Tribunal further found that the concerned workmen were removed from service without three months notice or payment of wages in lieu of notice and also without obtaining the statutory permission from the appropriate Government. The notice seeking permission sent by the petitioner-company on February 24, 1981 (that is, about two and half years after the retrenchment) was of no consequence. On these findings the Tribunal held that the retrenchments were in violation of the provisions of Sec. 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act. It further held that the retrenchments were made without any valid reason and the plea of the petitioner-company that the retrenchments were made in view of the prohibition imposed by the State Government with effect from April 1, 1979 was an after thought. The Tribunal pointed out that the retrenchments were made much earlier and the disputed retrenchments had no co-relation with the prohibition in the State coming much later. The Tribunal pointed out that the retrenchments were made much earlier and the disputed retrenchments had no co-relation with the prohibition in the State coming much later. The plea of prohibition was only a rationalisation and an after thought to justify the retrenchments which were in reality for no valid reasons. The Tribunal, accordingly, came to find and hold that the retrenchment of all the 89 workmen under reference was bad and illegal and was not justified. 15. As noted earlier in this judgment, Sri Y.V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-company, initially sought to challenge the Tribunals findings but he seems to have soon realised that those findings were practically unassailable and at the end he was resigned to accept the award upto the point that the disputed retrenchments were bad and unjustified. Being unable to assail the finding regarding the retrenchments being bad Sri Giri next tried to shift the resultant liabilities from the petitioner-company to respondents 6 and 7 who were later added as parties to the reference. 16. It is noted above that during the pendency of the reference (United Distilleries (Private), Ltd., respondent 6) was added as a party to the reference as a consequence of the establishment being transferred to it, first through a deed of lease and later by the petitioner-company making out right sale of the establishment in its favour. Similarly, Bihar State Sugar Corporation (respondent 7) was added as a party to the reference after the promulgation of Ordinance No. 38 of 1985, later replaced by the Bihar Sugar Undertaking (Acquisition) Act, 1985. Thus, besides the petitioner there were two other parties before the Tribunal which too could be considered for bearing the liabilities arising from the illegal retrenchment of the concerned workmen. 17. Taking first the case of the Bihar State Sugar Corporation, Ltd., it may be noted that Ordinance No. 38 of 1985 provided for acquisition and transfer of certain sugar undertakings, including the S.K.G. Sugar Mills at Hathwa. On January 10, 1986, the transferee company (United Distilleries (Private), Ltd. was given notice that the Hathwa Distillery (the establishment in question) was being taken over under the ordinance. On January 10, 1986, the transferee company (United Distilleries (Private), Ltd. was given notice that the Hathwa Distillery (the establishment in question) was being taken over under the ordinance. The transferee company (United Distilleries (Private), Ltd.) filed Writ Petition 83 of 1986 before the Supreme Court, challenging the notice on the ground that the distillery of which it was the owner did not fall within definition of the expression "scheduled undertaking" in the Ordinance. In that writ petition, Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 2748. of 1986 was filed praying for stay of operation of the notice. On that petition, the Supreme Court passed order, dated February 7, 1986, directing the State of Bihar and the Bihar State Sugar Corporation, Ltd., to remove their lock put on the establishment in question and to allow the transferee company United Distilleries (Private), Ltd., to operate and run the establishment on certain conditions indicated in that order. On the basis of that order passed by the Supreme Court, the transferee company United Distilleries (Private), Ltd., remains in complete possession of the establishment and continues to run and operate it. This circumstance alone, apart from the various provisions of the Sugar Undertaking (Acquisition) Act, appears to be sufficient to put the Bihar State Sugar Corporation, Ltd. (respondent 7) beyond any liabilities arising from the illegal retrenchments. And from the Tribunals award, it is evident that the counsel appearing for the workmen did not claim any relief against the Bihar State Sugar Corporation. The Tribunal was, therefore, quite right in holding that the liabilities arising from the retrenchment of the concerned workmen cannot be fixed on the State Government or the Sugar Corporation. 18. This leaves into reckoning the transferee company (United Distilleries (Private), Ltd.). Before proceeding to examine the respective cases of the petitioner-company and the transferee company, it may be noted that prior to the present reference a similar situation arose before the same Tribunal and between the same parties in Reference No. 34 of 1982. That reference too was between the management of S.K.G. Sugar, Ltd., Distillery Section, Mirganj, Gopalaganj, and their workmen and the dispute under reference related to the retrenchment of seven chemists employed in the establishment. That reference too was between the management of S.K.G. Sugar, Ltd., Distillery Section, Mirganj, Gopalaganj, and their workmen and the dispute under reference related to the retrenchment of seven chemists employed in the establishment. The retrenchment had taken place when the establishment was under the management of the petitioner-company but during the pendency of that reference the establishment was transferred to United Distilleries (Private), Ltd., and the transferee company was accordingly added as a party to the reference and was summoned to appear before the Tribunal in that reference. The Tribunal by its award, dated July 23, 1985, found and held that the retrenchment of the seven chemists was bad and illegal and it then proceeded to consider the question as to who between the petitioner- company and the transferee company would be required to bear the liabilities arising from the illegal retrenchments. On a detailed consideration of the attending facts and circumstances the Tribunal in its award in Reference No. 34 of 1982 found and held that the summoning of the transferee- company in that reference was not proper in terms of Sec. 18(3)(b) and in respect of the establishment to which the dispute related, the transferee company was not the successor or assign of the petitioner-company within the meaning of Sec. 18(3)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It, accordingly, held that no direction could be given to the transferee company in respect of seven chemists whose retrenchment was held to be bad and it was for the petitioner-company to bear the liabilities arising from the illegal retrenchments. It is not clear whether the Tribunals award in Reference No. 34 of 1982 was ever challenged before any superior Court or whether a challenge to it remained unsuccessful before the superior Courts. This much, however, is admitted that the Tribunals award, dated July 23, 1985, in Reference No. 34 of 1982 remained undisturbed and it attained finality. This was one of the main grounds for the Tribunal to hold in the present case that it would be the petitioner-company and not the transferee- company which must bear the liabilities arising from the illegal retrenchments. 19. This was one of the main grounds for the Tribunal to hold in the present case that it would be the petitioner-company and not the transferee- company which must bear the liabilities arising from the illegal retrenchments. 19. Apart from this, from the sale deed executed by the petitioner-company in favour of the transferee company it appears that one of the covenants between the parties, concerning the employees of the establishment being sold, was as follows: "(b) The purchaser shall on and from September 20, 1982 subject to exigencies of business continue in employment on the following terms and conditions the workmen not exceeding 200 pertaining to the said Hathwa Distillery out of the rolls as maintained by the vendor being in addition to those already taken over by the purchaser in terms of the lease, dated March 30, 1981, hereinbefore recited as informed in Part IV of the schedule hereunder written." "(i) to (v)". 20. At the end of the sale deed are the different schedules and schedule 4 contains the names of 198 workmen with their designation and other relevant details. It is, thus, evident that the transferee company took over the services of a definitely identified body of workmen and the transferee company therefore, cannot be saddled with the liabilities arising from the actions of the petitioner-company before the transfer took place and in respect of workmen whose liability was never taken over by the transferee company. 21. The Tribunal has also taken into consideration that the plea raised by the I petitioner-company to shift its liabilities to the transferee company would in effect amount to extending the terms of the reference which is not permissible in law. 22. Thus on hearing Sri Y. V. Gin, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners Sri Ranjit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the transferee company and Sri Shivaji Pandey for the workmen and on considering the materials on record, I am satisfied that the Tribunal has committed no error in holding that it was the petitioner-company which was legally bound to bear the liabilities arising from the illegal retrenchments made by it and I am satisfied that the award of the Tribunal warrants no interference on the issue. 23. I find no merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed.