Bazpur Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd.through Its General Manager,Bazpur,Dlstt Nalnltal vs Dy.Labour Commissioner Barelly Region & Anr.

M. Katju, J.—This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 9992, Annexure 1 to the petition. It appears that the petitioner is a registered cooperative sugar factory. For the years, 199192 the petitioner was given the contract for running bonded liquor godown under Section 18 in district Bareilly and it is alleged that the respondents were engaged by the petitioner from year to year because the contract was also from year to year Subsequently in 1992 the State Govt. gave the contract to Baheri Distillary and the workers represented by respondent No. 2, were employed by the Baheri Distillary. It is stated in para 6 of the petition that there was no termination of service as the workers continue in service of Baheri Distillery. However the workers filed an application under Section 6H(1) for retrenchment compensation which has been allowed by the impugned order. Hence this petition.

In my opinion the impugned order is illegal and is liable to be set aside. It may be clarified that under Section 6O of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, which corresponds to Section 25FF of the Central Industrial Disputes Act, it is provided that no worker will be entitled to compensation under Section 6N merely because of change of employer provided that the services had not been interrupted and service conditions were not less favourable. In the impugned order it is mentioned that there was no agreement and fresh appointments were given and hence Section 6O will not apply. In my opinion the word ''agreement'' in Section 6O covers not only an agreement where employer. A transfers the undertaking to employer B, it also includes a case of the present type where the employees of the earlier licensee are transferred to a subsequent licensee of the Government. An agreement can also be oraland in the present case there was obviously an oral agreement between the Government, the earlier licence (the petitioner), as well as the subsequent licensee. This oral agreement can be deducted from the conduct of the parties.

In my opinion we have to see the object of enacting Section 6 O. The object obviously was that while workers should not face hardship on the transfer of an undertaking at the same time the employer too should not be saddled with liability under Section 6N where the workers continue to work on the same terms under the subsequent employer. Looking at it from this angle, it is evident that issue of a fresh appointment by the subsequent employer will not be very relevant if substantially the worker continues in service on the same terms. These aspects have not been adverted to by the respondents. Hence I remand the matter to the Deputy Labour Commissioner who will decide the same after the hearing parties concerned in the light of the observations made above with in four months on production on certified copy of this judgment before him.