JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. By way of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- a). That writ in the nature of certiorari may very kindly be issued and the impugned award dated 28.6.2010, passed by respondent No.2 in Reference No. 21/2001 (Annexure P-4), qua the respondent No.1, may kindly be quashed and set aside and executions filed by the respondent No.1 before the Presiding Judge- Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal Dharamshala camp at Mandi, H.P be stayed/deferred due to be listed on 12.1.2012 till the final dipsoal of the writ petition. b). Any other writ, order or direction as may be deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court may also be passed in favour of the petitioners in the interest of justice. 2. In the instant petition, petitioners are aggrieved with the impugned award dated 28.6.2010 passed by Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-Cum- Labour Court, Dharamshala, HP in reference No.21 of 2001, whereby services rendered by the workmen with respondent No.3 w.e.f.20.8.1992 till 31.3.1994 have been directed to be considered for counting the same for the purpose of seniority and continuity in service of the workmen. Members of respondent-Union have also been held entitled to the grant of consequential relief arising thereto including regularization as per the policy of the State. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Corporation i.e. the Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Marketing and Processing Corporation is a company, which is government undertaking owned and controlled by the government of Himachal Pradesh and has been incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (in short “petitioner corporation”). The petitioner corporation is in the business of standardization, grading, sorting packing, branding, investigation, market research, storing where housing, cold/storage, distributing, converting, maintaining and rendering assistance of all and every kind of and any description including buying, selling, exchanging, altering, improving, producing, manufacturing and dealing in horticultural produce, horticultural operation and horticulture inputs including fertilizers manures, plant protection, material, machinery and irrigation in furtherance of production processing and marketing apples, apple products and other fruit and vegetable product. 4. 4. Respondent No.1 i.e. all unskilled workers of Fruit Processing Plant Jarol, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi (in short “FPP”) has been working with the aforesaid corporation in their plant at FPP, Jarol Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. It emerges from the perusal of the records that “FPP”, Jarol remained on lease from 20.8.1992 to 31.3.1994 for a period of one year, 7 months and 11 days with petitioner No.3, whereby services of all the regular employees and all unskilled workers, who are being represented in the present case by respondent No.1 were taken over by petitioner No.3 on the same terms and conditions as they were being governed earlier while they were working with petitioner No.1. Undisputedly, all the regular employees as well as unskilled workers, who were actually working with the petitioner-corporation at FPP, Jarol worked with respondent No.3 from 20.8.1992 to 31.3.1994, on the same terms and conditions, as they have been working with the petitioner corporation. 5. Record further reveals that as many as 50 members of respondent- Union were posted at Jarol Fruit Processing Plant, who were under the administration control of petitioner No.2. All unskilled workers stated that while leasing out this “FPP” Jarol to petitioner No.3 by the present petitioner No.1, respondent-Union was not taken into confidence and all the terms and conditions for their engagement during this period were settled by petitioners’ No. 1 and 2 themselves. However, unit remained on lease w.e.f. 20.8.1992 to 31.3.1994 for a period of one year, 7 months and 11 days. All the workers of the respondent- Union worked with petitioner No.2 and during this period they were being paid same salary as per old rates as they were getting earlier from the petitioner-corporation. 6. However subsequently when these workers made representation through union to petitioner No.1 for the regularization of their services, then they were told that services rendered by them during aforesaid lease with the M/s B.D.M. Company, Jarol, (petitioner No.3) cannot be counted for the purpose of regulation as well as other benefits. 7. The workers of respondent-Union also averred that during leased out period they worked under petitioner No.3 and they were being paid salary on the old rates as they were getting from petitioner No.2 and even CPF was being deducted regularly from their salary and, as such, they remained employees of petitioner No.1 for all indent and purposes during this period. 8. 8. Records further reveal that respondent -Union made representation on 1.6.1999 jointly to petitioner No.1 but no heed was paid to the same. Thereafter, reference was made to the Managing Director i.e. petitioner No.1 by the Labour Commissioner and the plant Manager appeared on behalf of the management to attend the conciliation proceedings. The Labour Inspector, in his conciliation proceedings dated 3.12.1999, recommended to the management for the regularization of the services of the workers after taking into consideration their services rendered under petitioner No.3 during leased out period. However, no action was taken in this regard by the petitioner compelling the respondent -Union to move an application under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the Court of Presiding Judge, H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla. 9. Present petitioner by way of detailed reply contested and refuted the claim of the respondent –Union and raised objection with regard to maintainability and authorization on behalf of the Secretary of respondent- Union to pursue the matter on their behalf. Specific ground was taken that members of respondent- Union were engaged on daily wages in the year, 1986-1987 that too on intermittently basis as per seasonal requirement. They also submitted that they were 35 unskilled workers in all and out of which, 5 workers have not completed 240 days in a calendar year, 8 workers have been engaged in July, 1994 and remaining 20 workers have been working since 1987 but not completed 240 days continuously till 20.8.1992 i.e. the date of handing over the plant on lease. Respondents-Union by way of reply submitted that before handing over the plant to petitioner No.3, on lease, wide publicity was given in the paper and, as such, it was in the knowledge of respondent-Union that their services are being taken over by the petitioner No.3. 10. Close scrutiny of the record further reveals that lease agreement was entered between petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.3 before handing over the “FPP” to petitioner No.3 the lessee, whereby 58 regular employees of the corporation were handed over to the lessee on the terms and conditions, which were agreeable to the regular employees. 10. Close scrutiny of the record further reveals that lease agreement was entered between petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.3 before handing over the “FPP” to petitioner No.3 the lessee, whereby 58 regular employees of the corporation were handed over to the lessee on the terms and conditions, which were agreeable to the regular employees. It is further seen from the records that services of 35 daily wage workers were not handed over to the lessee nor any conditions were put by the corporation regarding their status but during leased out period they kept on working with petitioner No. 3 on the same terms and conditions as they were working prior to leasing out the plant to petitioner No.3.The nature of the work in the plant used to be casual and, as such, they were designated as casual unskilled workers. Petitioner-corporation also submitted that retrenchment benefits were taken by the workers of respondent-Union and as such benefit of continuity in service and seniority cannot be given to them. Aforesaid facts were, however, highly disputed by the respondent-Union by filing rejoinder, in which, they categorically stated that their services were also taken over by petitioner No.3 along with 58 regular workers of the corporation and fact remains that during this period they worked as employee of petitioner No.1 in the FPP, Jarol, which was leased out to the petitioner for the specific period and during this period even they were getting salary on old rates as they were getting prior leasing out of “FPP” to petitioner No.3. 11. After completion of the aforesaid pleadings before the Presiding Jude, H.P Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court Shimla, final award came to be passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 28.6.2010. The following reference was sent by the appropriate government to the learned Tribunal for adjudication:- “Whether the demand raised by the Secretary, all Unskilled Workers of HPMC Factory, Jarol, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, HP with (1) Managing Director, HPMC, Shimla;(2) Manager, HPMC, Jarol and (3) M/s B.D.M. Company, Jarol, Tehsil Sunderngar, District Mandi, HP for their regularization on completion of 10 years of service as prescribed by taking into consideration their lease period with the BDM company and further their demand for wages as per their skill, is reasonable and justified. If yes, to what relief of service benefits including regularization, wages and amount of compensation, the above unskilled workers are entitled?” 12. If yes, to what relief of service benefits including regularization, wages and amount of compensation, the above unskilled workers are entitled?” 12. The learned Court below after taking into consideration the pleadings as well as oral evidence brought on record by the respective parties allowed the reference and ordered that the services rendered by the workmen with petitioner No.3 w.e.f. 20.8.1992 till 31.3.1994, shall be considered and counted for the purpose of the seniority and continuity in the service of the workmen and they shall also be entitled to consequential relief arising thereto including regularization as per the police of the State. 13. In the aforesaid background, petitioner by way of present petition has challenged the award passed by learned Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Dharmashala. 14. Mr. Ashwani Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners vehemently argued that the impugned award is not sustainable as the same is not based upon correct appreciation of the evidence be it ocular or documentary and the same is based upon surmises, conjectures. 15. Mr. Sharma, forcibly contended that learned Tribunal below has miserably failed to appreciate that all the unskilled workers engaged on FPP, Jarol were causal workers working as per the seasonal requirement. Since, work in FPP was seasonal in nature and, as such, they were being engaged intermittently as per seasonal requirements. Therefore, finding returned by learned tribunal below that these workers had completed 240 days in each calendar year is contrary to the record and the same deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 16. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel vehemently argued that learned Tribunal below has also failed to take note of the fact that at the time of leasing out the plant in favour of petitioner No.2, all these unskilled workers were paid retrenchment benefits in the year, 1994 and, as such, findings of learned Tribunal below that there is no sufficient compliance of Section 25-FF is baseless and cannot be accepted on the face of the material available on record. 17. Mr. Sharma, also invited attention of this Court to the statement given by Plant Manager, Sh. H.S.Guleria, who had stated that retrenchment benefits were given to these unskilled workers in the year, 1994. 17. Mr. Sharma, also invited attention of this Court to the statement given by Plant Manager, Sh. H.S.Guleria, who had stated that retrenchment benefits were given to these unskilled workers in the year, 1994. He also invited attention of this Court to the statement/admission made by one of the petitioner/employee Joginder Singh that they were employed by petitioner No.3 and have taken retrenchment benefits from petitioner No.3, when the plant was again taken over by petitioners’ No. 1 and 2. 18. Mr. Sharma, strenuously argued that learned Tribunal has bestowed double benefits in favour of the respondent-Union, as it stands proved on the record that retrenchment benefits under Section 25-FF already stands paid to them besides counting of their services from 20.8.1992 to 31.3.1994 for all intent and purposes i.e. regularization and seniority and, as such, amount received by the petitioner on account of retrenchment benefits is required to be refunded to the petitioner. 19. Mr. Yudhbir Singh Thakur, learned counsel representing the respondent-Union supported the impugned award and submitted that no interference of this Court is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of this case. A bare perusal of the impugned award leaves no doubt in the mind that the same is based on correct appreciation of the evidence available on record. He forcibly contended that there is no document on record which could suggest that services of members of respondent- Union were not taken over by petitioner No.3 at the time of leasing out the FPP, Jarol, rather it is admitted fact that during this period these workers worked with petitioner No.3 and they were getting their salaries as per the old rates as the employees of petitioner No.1. He also opposed the arguments raised by Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate, whereby the factum with regard to the payment of compensation under Section 25- FF of the Industrial Tribunal Act was brought to the notice of the Court. He prayed that the present petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be dismissed being devoid of any merit. 20. I have heard the learned counsel of the parties and have carefully perused the record. 21. From the narration of the facts as well as arguments having been made by learned counsel representing the parties, one thing clearly emerge that respondent - Union have been working with petitioner No.1 since 1987 and since then they have been working continuously. 20. I have heard the learned counsel of the parties and have carefully perused the record. 21. From the narration of the facts as well as arguments having been made by learned counsel representing the parties, one thing clearly emerge that respondent - Union have been working with petitioner No.1 since 1987 and since then they have been working continuously. But w.e.f. 20.8.1992 to 31.3.1994 precisely for a period of one year, 7 months and 11 days their workers worked with petitioner No.3. As per the petitioner own averment contained in the petition, it is crystal clear that there was some agreement between petitioners No.1 and 3, whereby services of 58 regular employees were also handed over to petitioner No.3 during lease out period. However, it has been disputed that services of unskilled workers of respondent-Union were not handed over to the petitioner, but it has not been denied that during this period all these workers had been working with petitioner No.3 and getting salaries as per old rates which they were used to get from the petitioner-corporation, meaning thereby the services of respondent-Union were also used by petitioner No.3 during lease out period. 22. Though, it was specifically pleaded on behalf of the respondent-Union by way of reply filed in this Court as well as to the application filed under Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Tribunal Act, that respondent-Union was not taken into confidence while entering into an agreement with petitioner No.3 and present petitioner neither before this Court nor before Industrial Tribunal disputed the aforesaid submissions made by respondent No.1. Rather perusal of Annexure-P-1 filed on behalf of respondent- Union before this Court suggest that the members of respondent No.1-Union had been working with the petitioner in the year 1986-1987 and all the members have completed 240 days. But now dispute with regard to non compliance of 240 days by members of respondent- Union has no relevance in view of the fact that the services of these workers have been regularized by the petitioner No.1. 23. At this stage, only dispute between the parties is with regard to benefit of period w.e.f.20.8.1992 to 31.3.1994, when admittedly workers of respondent-Union worked with petitioner No.3 in the FPP, Jarol, which was leased out by petitioner No.1 to petitioner No.3. 23. At this stage, only dispute between the parties is with regard to benefit of period w.e.f.20.8.1992 to 31.3.1994, when admittedly workers of respondent-Union worked with petitioner No.3 in the FPP, Jarol, which was leased out by petitioner No.1 to petitioner No.3. The specific stand which was taken by the present petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal was that 5 workman were engaged on daily wages in the year, 1986-87 on the intermittently basis as per seasonal requirement and they have not completed 240 days in a calendar year. But now aforesaid statement made on behalf of the present petitioner before this Court as well as before the Industrial Tribunal has no relevance, especially in view of the fact that all the workers of respondent-Union have been regularized and, as such, plea being taken by the petitioner of their having being appointed on intermittently basis is of no consequences at this stage. Now with regard to the status of the services of these workers of respondent -Union during the period from 20.8.1992 to 31.3.1994 is concerned, it undisputed that during this period these workers, who were earlier working with petitioner No.1 had actually worked in continuity with petitioner No.3 and they have also been getting salary on the rate which they used to get from petitioner No.1. However, petitioner No.1 has taken stand that their services were not handed over to the lessee nor any condition was put by the corporation regarding their status and they were paid retrenchment benefit and as such continuity cannot be given. Aforesaid submissions and arguments is totally misconceived and cannot be accepted solely for the reason that during lease out period all these workers worked with petitioner No.3 and it also stands proved on record that they were being paid on same rates as they used to get from the petitioner No.1 and their CPF was also being deducted on the same rates by the petitioner No.3. Now, if it is viewed from another angle, it is own case of the petitioners that immediately after leased out period was over i.e. year 1994, their services were again taken by petitioner in the FPP, Jarol, meaning thereby that during this lease out period they were working with lessee, so their services were taken over by petitioner No.3. Now, if it is viewed from another angle, it is own case of the petitioners that immediately after leased out period was over i.e. year 1994, their services were again taken by petitioner in the FPP, Jarol, meaning thereby that during this lease out period they were working with lessee, so their services were taken over by petitioner No.3. Petitioner No.3 has not denied before the learned Industrial Tribunal that during lease out period workers of respondent-Union did not work with them. Aforesaid fact clearly suggest that workers of respondent Union had been continuing working on the same terms and conditions with the petitioner No.3 and thereafter they were allowed to work in the same PFF, Jarol which was being run by petitioner No.1. Moreover, as has been mentioned above that services of these workers had been regularized vide order dated 3rd September, 2007 and 10th October, 2007 which fact also indicates that all these workers had completed 240 days in a calendar year because it was condition precedent for regularization framed by the State Government of H.P. 24. Mr. Ashwani Sharma, learned counsel argued that in the year, 1994 all these workers were paid retrenchment benefit, as envisaged under Section 25-FF of the Industrial Dispute Act and, as such, the findings retuned by the learned Tribunal is wrong and contrary to the record. 25. It is ample clear from the record that Unit was handed over to petitioner No. 3 on 20.8.1992, which remains with petitioner No.3 till 31st March, 1994. If at this stage, it is accepted that they were paid retrenchment benefit in terms of Section 25-FF, it is not understood as to why it was paid in March, 1994. Though, it has been seriously disputed by respondent-Union because as per requirement of Section 25-FF, retrenchment benefit was required to be paid to the workmen at the time of leasing out the plant to petitioner No.3. At this stage, it was apt to reproduce Section 25-FF. It reads thus: “ 25FF. Though, it has been seriously disputed by respondent-Union because as per requirement of Section 25-FF, retrenchment benefit was required to be paid to the workmen at the time of leasing out the plant to petitioner No.3. At this stage, it was apt to reproduce Section 25-FF. It reads thus: “ 25FF. Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertaking- Where the ownership of management of an undertaking is transferred, whether by agreement or by operation of law, from the employer in relation to or that undertaking to a new employer, every workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year in that undertaking immediately before such transfer shall be entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-F, as if the workman had been retrenched: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a workman in any case where there has been a change of employers by reason of the transfer, if- (a) the service of the workman has not been interrupted by such transfer; (b) the terms and conditions of service applicable to the workman after such transfer are not in any way less favourable to the workman than those applicable to him immediately before the transfer; and (c) the new employer is, under the terms of such transfer or otherwise , legally liable to pay to the workman, in the event of his retrenchment, compensation on the basis that his service has been continuous and has not been interrupted by the transfer.’ 26. Plain reading of section 25-FF makes it mandatory for the management of an undertaking to issue notice and pay compensation to the workmen were sought to be retrenched. It is crystal clear from the reading of the aforesaid provision that at the time of transfer, notice is required to be given under section 25-FF to the employee, whose services are sought to be retrenched and thereafter he is required to be paid retrenchment compensation. 27. It is crystal clear from the reading of the aforesaid provision that at the time of transfer, notice is required to be given under section 25-FF to the employee, whose services are sought to be retrenched and thereafter he is required to be paid retrenchment compensation. 27. In the present case, even as per own admission of the petitioner that retrenchment benefit was paid to respondent No.1 in the year, 1994 i.e. when lease was completed and plant was handed over back to the petitioner No.1, it remains unexplained that what made petitioner to pay retrenchment compensation to the workmen of respondent -Union in the year, 1994 when they were again allowed to work in the FPP, Jarol which at the relevant time was under the control of petitioner No.1. Rather, it can be safely concluded that there is no compliance of section 25-FF by the petitioner No.1. The petitioners have failed to comply with section 25-FF where they were required to issue notice to the workmen before retrenchment of their services. Rather, in the present case fact remains that the petitioner was allowed to work with the same unit on the same terms and conditions after the lease had come to an end, meaning thereby workmen did not cease to work at any point of time and as such services rendered by the members of respondent –Unit during lease out period have to be held as period of “continuous service” and they are entitled to the benefit of continuity in service. Record available on the file nowhere shows that in what manner and of what time the retrenchment compensation was given and to whom because admittedly there is no evidence on record to suggest that there was sufficient compliance of provision 25-FF, whereby retrenchment compensation was required to paid to the workmen at the time of transfer from FPP, Jarol in terms of lease agreement entered in between petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.3. It is the own case of the petitioner that retrenchment compensation was paid in the year, 1994 meaning thereby that no compensation, as envisaged under Section 25 FF was actually paid to the respondent No.1 at the time of taking over by the unit by petitioner No.3. Hence, there is much violation of section 25- FF of Industrial Disputes Act. 28. Hence, there is much violation of section 25- FF of Industrial Disputes Act. 28. In totality of the facts and circumstances, as discussed hereinabove, it clearly emerges that member of respondent-Union worked in continuity with the petitioner No.3 w.e.f. 20.8.1992 to 31.3.1994, which was subsequently again taken back by the petitioner No.1 and thereafter these members of respondent No.1 were allowed to work without any brake as has been discussed above. Moreover, as has been stated above, services of all these members have been regularized and now at this stage such plea with regard to the compliance of section 25-FF have no relevance. Consequently, this Court see no reason whatsoever to interfere with the award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, which appears to be based on correct evidence available on record. Hence, the present petitioner is dismissed, along with the pending application(s), if any.