- (1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 9-9-92, Annexure 1 to the petition. It ap pears that the petitioner is a registered cooperative sugar factory. For the years, 1991-92 the petitioner was given the con tract 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 Sub sequently 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 Dis tillery. However the workers filed an ap plication under Section 6-H (1) for retrenchment compensation which has been allowed by the impugned order. Hence this petition.
(2.) IN my opinion the impugned order is illegal and is liable to be set aside. It may be clarified that under Section 6-O of the U. P. INdustrial Disputes Act, which corresponds to Section 25-FF of the Central INdustrial Disputes Act, it is provided that no worker will be entitled to compensation under Sec tion 6-N 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 6-O will not apply. IN my opinion the word 'agreement' in Sec tion 6-O covers not only an agreement where employer. A transfers the undertak ing to employer B, it also includes a case of the present type where the employees of the earlier licensee are transferred to a sub sequent 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 under taking at the same time the employer too should not be saddled with liability under Section 6-N where the workers continue to work on the same terms under the sub sequent employer. Looking at it from this angle, it is evident that issue of a fresh ap pointment 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 Commis sioner 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. Petition allowed. .;