One wonders whether the SC would have come to the same decision had it been employees of private corporations rather than quasi-govt corporations(societies). I'm also a bit confused about the part they are cognizant of the fact that the employees heve been absorbed by local govt bodies. Why is this material to the facts? What if they had not been absorbed? Would the SCs decision have been different? If an employer goes bust, can it really be required to keep paying 'workers'? How? With what?
