K. Kannan, J. - (1.) CM No. 23612 -CII of 2015 Application is allowed, as prayed for. Additional affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 is taken on record. COCP No. 188 of 2011 A plea in contempt is made by the employee -respondent contending that the direction of this court in CWP No. 9518 of 2000 for payment of the benefits of Sec. 17 -B of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with. The writ petition was a challenge to the order of reinstatement granted by the Labour Court. After the disposal of the case by the Labour Court and during the pendency of writ petition, there have been certain change of circumstances that resulted in closure of the factory itself. The employer -writ petitioner had been proceeded with under the provisions of SARFAESI Act and the property had been sold in auction brought at the instance of the Recovery Officer. The purchaser had contracted at the time of purchase that he will undertake all the liabilities and indeed in a settlement brought before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the purchaser had paid an amount of Rs. 34,16,201/ - as gratuity amounts payable and all other dues to the entire body of workmen employed at the factory.
(2.) The writ petitioner, therefore, had filed an application for modification of the order directing the payment of the benefits of Sec. 17 -B to the employer and also pointing out that the entire plant and machinery had been sold along with land on which the factory had been situate. Since he was not actually running the factory, there was no liability attached under Sec. 17 -B. No order had been, however, passed on the application for modification of the original order issued by this court at the time of grant of stay of operation of the Labour Court order. The application had been pending all along when the writ petition itself was disposed of on 04.11.2015.
(3.) In response to the plea for contract for alleged non -compliance of direction for payment of benefit of Sec. 17 -B, the writ petitioner would contend that admittedly he was paid the benefits of Sec. 17 -B to the workman even after the sale had taken place when there was no such liability. The benefit had been paid actually upto January, 2011. There has been no disobedience of the order and more so, particularly after the writ petition itself was disposed of. The liability under Sec. 17 -B could subsist only during the pendency of the writ petition and if the liability were to be reckoned upto the disposal of the writ petition in CWP No. 9518 of 2000, dated 04.11.2015, such liability should also be calculated and should be directed to be given only by the purchaser and not by the writ petitioner.;