Court, that the first respondent is not liable to answer any of the claims of the workmen concerned, is perfectly justified. From the various facts, given above, it will clearly be seen that the order terminating the services of the workmen, was made on August 21, 1961, by the Superintendent of the Tea Gardens, under instructions from the Receiver appointed by the Jorhat court, in the mortgage suit. On October 5, 1961, the High Court had appointed a Receiver, for the Tea Gardens, as separate from the Tea Company, in the suit, Transfer company Suit No. 7 of 1962. The order, referring the dispute to the Labour Court was made, by the Government, on July 27, 1962, The 1st respondent, admittedly, was not in the picture, on these various dates. It cannot also be stated, having due regard to the various recitals, contained in the sale deed, dated August 11, 1962, and considered, in the light of the principles, laid down by this Court, in Anakapalla Cooperative Agricultural & Industrial Society Ltd. v. Workmen [(1963) Supp 1 SCR 730] that the first respondent is the successor-in-interest of the Tea Company. What was purchased, by the first respondent, was only the equity of redemption in a part of the assets of the Tea Company, in respect of which the Official Liquidator was still functioning. Therefore, the learned Solicitor-General is perfectly justified in his contention that the first respondent cannot be considered to be a successor-in-interest of the Tea company nor can he be considered to claim through the Receiver, or Liquidator. Even on the basis that the first respondent is considered to be a person, to whom the ownership of the undertaking has been transferred, it will be seen that the claims of the workmen will have to be considered, as against the Tea Company, in accordance with Section 25-FF of the Act, when its proviso cannot be invoked.
