JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. : The order dated 28th December, 1995 (Annex¬ure-7 to the Writ application) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in Industrial Dispute Misc.Case No.114 of 1993 is assailed by the petitioner who asserts that he was a workman initially under the OMC Alloys Ltd.( Orissa Mining Corpo¬ration) and subsequently under M/s.Ferro Alloys Plant (Tata Iron and Steel Co.Ltd.). According to him he was appointed as a Peon on 27.11.1984 by the Managing Director of OMC Alloys, opposite party No.2. While working as such without any rhyme or reason his services were terminated with effect from 21.2.1987. He raised an industrial dispute and conciliation having failed the State Government of Orissa in exercise of power conferred under Section 12(5) read with clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 referred the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication. The reference read as follows : “Whether the termination of services of Shri Jatindranath Nayak, Peon by the Management of O.M.C.Alloys Ltd., Bhubaneswar with effect from 21.2.1987 is legal and/or justified ? If not, to what relief is Shri Nayak entitled ? The said reference was registered as I.D.Case No.8 of 1990. While the Labour Court was in seisin over the matter, on 30.8.1991 O.M.C.Alloys Ltd., opposite party No.1, a subsidiary of O.M.C.Ltd. got merged with O.M.C.Ltd.and was re-named as Charge-Chrome Division of O.M.C.Ltd. On 24.9.1991 the State of Orissa promulgated an Ordinance bearing number 8 of 1991, nomenclatured as “The Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. (Acquisition and Transfer of Charge-Chrome Division) Ordinance, 1991, vide Annexure-8. In consonance with that Ordinance, the right, title and interest of Charge-Chrome Division of OMC Ltd. vested in the State Govern¬ment. On 27.9.1991 an Agreement was entered into by the State Government and the Tata Iron and Steel Company (for short ’TIS¬CO’) inter se where-under the modalities of transfer of Charge-Chrome Division of O.M.C.Ltd. which stood vested in the State Government under Ordinance No.8 of 1991 were determined. In consonance with Clause 5 of the said Agreement TISCO agreed to take over the employees of the plant whose names had been listed in the Schedule appended to the Agreement on the terms and condi¬tions that existed without interruption of service. It is submit¬ted that the said schedule contained names of 542 employees under various capacities. In consonance with Clause 5 of the said Agreement TISCO agreed to take over the employees of the plant whose names had been listed in the Schedule appended to the Agreement on the terms and condi¬tions that existed without interruption of service. It is submit¬ted that the said schedule contained names of 542 employees under various capacities. After becoming the absolute owner of the Charge Chrome Division, TISCO came to know about pendency of the aforesaid I.D.Case No.8 of 1990. Therefore opposite party No.3, as a matter of abundant caution, filed an application before the Labour Court with a prayer to be impleaded as a party to that case and to be given opportunity of being heard. The said petition was resisted and no orders were passed thereon nor any opportunity of hearing was given to TISCO.. On 5.11.1991 the Labour Court passed an Award in the said I.D.Case No.8 of 1990 answering the reference in affirmative and held that termination of services of the petitioner by the man¬agement of OMC Alloys Ltd. with effect from 21.2 1987 was neither legal nor justified and that the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement in service with effect from 20.2.1987. The petitioner asserts that after notification of the said Award of the Labour Court in Orissa Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 30th November, 1991, vide Annexure-1 to the Writ application, he submitted his joining report, but then opposite party No.3 nei¬ther accepted the same nor paid him salary. Therefore he was constrained to file an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 registered as I.D.Misc.Case No.114 of 1993 for determination of his dues. The Labour Court issued notice of the said I.D.Misc.Case to opposite parties 2 and 3. While O.M.C., opposite party No.2, did not appear in that case, opposite party No.3, TISCO, appeared and filed its objection. The Labour Court after hearing the parties by the order dated 28.11.1995 rejected the said I.D.Misc.Case mainly on the ground that in the changed scenario of management, the claim of the petitioner was not capable of computation in terms of money. The Labour Court after hearing the parties by the order dated 28.11.1995 rejected the said I.D.Misc.Case mainly on the ground that in the changed scenario of management, the claim of the petitioner was not capable of computation in terms of money. The said order is Annexure- 7 to the Writ application which is as¬sailed on the ground that opposite party No.3 being an assignee in consonance with Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and being well aware of the I.D.Case and having appeared in that case, the Award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the petitioner in service and consequent payment of salary was binding on it. 2. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of oppo¬site party No.3 taking a stand that it is not liable to pay any amount as per the Award which is not binding on it. According to opposite party No.3, after acquisition of the industry concerned and coming to know about pendency of the aforesaid ID.Case in order to avoid future complications a petition was filed by it for being impleaded as a party to the said case. However the said petition was resisted and in fact no order was passed thereon by the Labour Court. Thus opposite party No.3 was precluded from raising any submission before the Labour Court and the Award passed ex parte without affording any opportunity of hearing to opposite party No.3 either to file objection or advance its submissions, is unjust, illegal and not binding on the said opposite party. It has also been averred that after disposal of the I.D.Case and publication of the Award in gazette and coming to know about the ex parte Award, a petition was filed by opposite party No.3 to recall the ex parte Award but no orders were passed on the said petition also. Even otherwise, the Labour Court having taken all the facts and circumstances into consideration, arrived at the conclusion that as opposite party No.3 was not a party to the case, and the Award was not binding on it, dismissed the petition filed under Section 33C(2) of the I.D.Act. The said order being just, proper and in consonance with law may not be interfered with by this Court. 3. This Court heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the Writ Petition, counter-affidavit, rejoin¬ders and documents annexed. According to Mr. The said order being just, proper and in consonance with law may not be interfered with by this Court. 3. This Court heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the Writ Petition, counter-affidavit, rejoin¬ders and documents annexed. According to Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, TISCO being an assignee is bound by the Award passed by the Labour Court in consonance with Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He further submitted that opposite party No.3 was well aware of the proceedings of I.D.Case and did participate therein. Therefore it cannot be permitted to turn back and take a stand that the Award having been passed ex parte is not binding on it. 4. To appreciate the arguments advanced, the provisions of Section 18(3) of the I.D.Act, 1947 are quoted hereinbelow: “18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding. (3) A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation under this Act or an arbitration award in a case where a notifi¬cation has been issued under Sub-section (3A) of section 10A or an award of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal which has become enforceable shall be binding on - (a) all parties to the industrial dispute; (b) all other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings as parties to the dispute, unless the Board, arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, records the opinion that they were so summoned without proper cause; (c) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is an employer his heirs, successors or assigns in respect of the establishment to which the dispute relates; (d) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is composed of workmen, all persons who were employed in the estab¬lishment or part of the establishment, as the case may be, to which the dispute relates on the date of the dispute and all persons who subsequently become employed in that establishment or part.” (Emphasis supplied) 5. According to Mr.Das, by an agreement executed by the State Government and TISCO inter se, the entire establishment of Charge-Chrome Division vested in TISCO subject to the terms and conditions enumerated in the agreement and, as such, TISCO being an assignee is liable to discharge the obligations flowing from the Award. 6. According to Mr.Das, by an agreement executed by the State Government and TISCO inter se, the entire establishment of Charge-Chrome Division vested in TISCO subject to the terms and conditions enumerated in the agreement and, as such, TISCO being an assignee is liable to discharge the obligations flowing from the Award. 6. The scenario of facts as narrated above clearly reveals that transfer of the Charge-Chrome Division in favour of TISCO was completed on 27.9.1991 when the aforesaid I.D.Case No.8 of 1990 was pending. TISCO was however not impleaded as a party to that case. By way of abundant caution it suo motu wanted to be impleaded as such which was resisted. Without grant of any oppor¬tunity, an ex parte Award was passed in the aforesaid I.D.Case. 7. According to Mr.Parija, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.3, the petition filed by TISCO for being im¬pleaded as a party to the I.D.Case had been rejected by the Labour Court. That apart, even on merit the petitioner had abso¬lutely no case, inasmuch as in consonance with the terms of an agreement the services of only those persons whose names found place in the schedule to the agreement were taken over/trans¬ferred to opposite party No.3. The name of the petitioner was not in the said schedule. He emphatically submitted that given oppor¬tunity, opposite party No.3 could have placed the true facts before the Labour Court and the decision might have been other¬wise. 8. The word “assignee” means and connotes a person to whom the rights or interest of another is transferred. In the case at hand, after the Industry was transferred to TISCO by virtue of an agreement executed by Government, it applied to be impleaded as a party to the I.D.Case, but was not permitted, and the Award was passed without affording any opportunity. Coming to know the said fact, a petition was filed under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC to set aside the said Award passed ex parte. 9. Mr.Das, however, took the pains to convince this Court that the Award passed by the Labour Court is binding on opposite party No.3 which is liable to comply with the same. Coming to know the said fact, a petition was filed under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC to set aside the said Award passed ex parte. 9. Mr.Das, however, took the pains to convince this Court that the Award passed by the Labour Court is binding on opposite party No.3 which is liable to comply with the same. But then for the simple reason that opposite party No.3 being not impleaded as a party to that case and no opportunity of hearing being granted to it by the Labour Court, the Award passed in the I.D.Case cannot be treated to be binding on it. There being gross viola¬tion of natural justice and equity, this Court stands un-con¬vinced by the argument of Mr.Das. 10. Admittedly the transfer of the Charge-Chrome Division was made in favour of opposite party No.3 during pendency of the aforesaid ID.Case. It is submitted that the petition filed by opposite party No.3 before the Labour Court under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC praying to recall the ex parte Award is still pending. It is therefore open to the parties to pursue their remedy before the Labour Court, if so advised. With the aforesaid discussion and observation the OJC is disposed of. Petition disposed of.