2 herein, was in the employment of M s. Finally Mills Ltd, respondent No.3 from January 1, 1954 till March 22, 1983 when he resigned.
2 taken over by NTC.
Since the appellant, namely, Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, had been impleaded as a party in the proceedings, the appellant has filed this appeal, by special leave, against the said decision of the Bombay High Court.
Respondent No.
16,730/ towards gratuity in the Court of the Controlling Authority within one month from the date of the said order.
3 with the NTC with effect from October 18, 1983.
Respondent No.
NTC was impleaded as a party to the proceedings before the Controlling Authority.
3 was taken over by the Central Government.
16,730/ .
By order dated October 31, 1984, the Controlling Authority upheld the objection raised by NTC regarding its liability for the gratuity amount payable to respondent number 2 and held that the said gratuity amount was payable by respondent No.3.
3 failed to pay the amount of gratuity, respondent No.
He made a claim of Rs.
3 did number appear to companytest the petition before the Controlling Authority but the NTC appeared and companytested its liability for the payment of gratuity to respondent No.2.
The said claim of the respondent No.
The said Ordinance was subsequently replaced by the Act which was brought into force with effect from October 18, 1983.
2 filed an appeal before the Industrial Court, Maharashtra against the said order of the Controlling Authority dated 31st October, 1984 wherein he claimed that NTC was liable to pay the gratuity amount to him.
2 moved the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act seeking for the recovery of the said amount of Rs.
Since the respondent No.
The Controlling Authority, therefore, directed respondent No.
2 was upheld by the Industrial Court and, allowing the appeal, the Industrial Court, by order dated August 7, 1985, directed that in the event of respondent No.
16,730/ towards gratuity payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and submitted an application in Form I with respondent No.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the Industrial Court, NTC filed a writ petition Writ Petition No.8 of 1986 in the Bombay High Court.
3 to deposit the amount of Rs.
2 failing to deposit the gratuity in the Court, the same shall also be recovered from NTC to the extent of the assets and other properties of the textile undertaking of respondent No.
On October 18, 1983, the President of India promulgated the Textile Undertakings Taking Over of Management Ordinance, 1983 whereby the management of the Cotton Textile undertaking of respondent No.
The Central Government vested the management of the textile undertaking of respondent No.
Mohan Sambhaji Parab, respondent No.
C. AGRAWAL, J. The question which falls for companysideration in this appeal is whether in respect of a textile undertaking whose management has been taken over under the provisions of the Textile Undertakings Take Over of Management Act, 1983 for short the Act , the National Textiles Corporation South Maharashtra Ltd. Respondent number 1 for short NTC is liable for the gratuity payable to an employee who had ceased to be in employment prior to the take over of the management of the undertaking.
