Change from partnership to sole proprietorship may not break continuity; discharge without notice can still amount to retrenchment.

A mere change in the constitution of a business from partnership to sole proprietorship, where the undertaking continues in the same name, purpose and object, does not by itself amount to a transfer of undertaking or a change of employer under the Industrial Disputes Act. On that basis, continuous service is not broken and liability under Sections 25F and 25FF remains unaffected. The document also states that a discharge without notice, assessed on the surrounding facts including the employer's own plea that the worker had resigned, may still fall within retrenchment under Section 2(oo).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the change in constitution of the business from partnership to sole proprietorship amounted to a transfer of undertaking or a change of employer so as to affect liability under Sections 25F and 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act. (ii) Whether the employee's discharge amounted to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Issue (i): Whether the change in constitution of the business from partnership to sole proprietorship amounted to a transfer of undertaking or a change of employer so as to affect liability under Sections 25F and 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Analysis: The business continued in the same name, for the same purpose and with the same object. A mere change in the composition of the partnership, followed by dissolution and continuation by one partner alone, did not amount to a transfer of business or a change of employer for the purposes of Sections 25F and 25FF. The definition of employer in Section 2(g) did not support the contention that such internal reconstitution created a new employer. The workman's continuous service was therefore not broken.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected and the statutory liability under Sections 25F and 25FF was upheld against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the employee's discharge amounted to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Analysis: The discharge was effected without notice, and the petitioner's own case before the Tribunal was that the employee had resigned and left after handing over the key. On the facts found, the termination fell within the statutory concept of retrenchment.

Conclusion: The discharge was retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo).

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the Tribunal's award of retrenchment compensation was sustained, and the Rule was discharged.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere change in the constitution of a partnership business, where the undertaking continues unchanged, does not amount to a transfer of business or a change of employer under the Industrial Disputes Act, and such a discharge may still constitute retrenchment if it falls within the statutory definition.

---