' The ten appeals captioned above arise from the decisions dated 22-2-1984 passed in five separate grievance petitions brought by Muhammad Ayub, Muhammad Rafiq, Asghar Ali, Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Boota, workers. Since all the appeals involve the same question of fact and law, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment, in which Muhammad Akram will be described as the appellant and all the workers mentioned above as the respondents. The respondents have been directed to be taken back on duty without back benefits. The appellant has in all the appeals attacked the direction to take back the respondents on duty, whereas the respondents have in their respective appeals claimed back benefits.
2. The respondents were the employees of Javed Silk Factory run by Sh. Farzand Ali. He closed the Factory on the pie of lack of capital. A settlement was arrived at between the workers and Farzand All that after two months, the Factory would be re-started and the respondents would be recalled on duty. Rs,600 were paid to each of the respondents for the period of two months during which the factory was to remain closed. Farzand Ali, instead of re-starting the factory, sold the machinery to Muhammad Akram, appellant and gave the possession of the premises to him on the hire and the appellant started the same business under the name and style of Younus Silk Factory. The respondents brought petitions under section 25-A against Farzand Ali after service of grievance notices and after written statement was filed by the latter, Muhammad Akram was impleaded as party.
3. The case of the appellant is that he purchased the machinery only and did not accept the liabilities, so is not bound to recall the respondents on duty. Obviously, the services of the respondents were not terminated by the previous employer. The respondents, therefore, continued to be in service waiting for the restart of the factory. Admittedly, the factory was re-started by the appellant instead of by the previous owner. The appellant was bound to make reasonable enquiry about the previous position of the factory. The factory, according to the evidence, had remained closed only for two months and not for a considerable period. It is presumed that the appellant had made enquiry and had come to know that certain workers had been working in the factory. He, therefore, was bound to enquire from the previous owner as to what settlement had been made with the previous employees. If actually he did not make any such enquiry, he purchased the machinery at his own risk. Since admittedly the appellant is running the same business, the respondents were entitled to be re-called. The appellant purchased the machinery subject to the settlement made by the previous owner with the labour. If he expressly did not accept the liabilities, he cannot escape the responsibility as he was bound to make enquiry from the previous owner about the previous working of the factory. The appellant stepped into the shoes of the previous owner and became the employer.
4. It has been argued that service of grievance notice upon the appellant was necessary. The respondents were not party to the private transaction made between the appellant and Farzand Ali, the previous owner, so are not expected to know about the change. They served grievance notices upon the previous employer and it was sufficient. The other argument is that notice to Farzand Al on the previous address was not sufficient, since he had sold the factory. The answer is simple that the respondents know only that address on which they had been dealing with the previous owner. They were not bound to trace out his present address.
The learned lower Court has rightly directed the appellant to take the respondents back on duty.
The respondents are not entitled to back benefits, because they did not contact the new owner after the factory had re-started working.
6. As a result, all the appeals being without force are dismissed.