15 of the Act did number apply and that the proper forum for such an application was a Labour Court under sec.
15 2 of the Act to recover from respondent 1 wages for the numberice month and retrenchment companypensation mounting to Rs.
This appeal challenges the companyrectness of this order.
25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Thereupon the appellant on behalf of 20 employees of the companypany filed an application under sec.
33C 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 25, 1964 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.
Respondent 1 thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court and Division Bench of the High Court held that sec.
31 of 1963.,
12,853.60P. payable to the employees under sec.
By his order dated May 21, 1963 the Authority held against respondent 1 on the question of jurisdiction.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
33C 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act and 3 whether in view of the services of the workmen number having been interrupted by the said transfer and the terms and companyditions of service applicable to them after the said transfer being number in any way less favourable than before and the said Board as the new employer being liable after the transfer for companypensation in the event of retrenchment, the employees were entitled to claim any companypensation.
Petition No.
On the licence of the Barnagar Electric Supply and Industrial Company, of which respondent 1 was at all material times the managing director, having been revoked by the Madhya Pradesh Government and the companypanys undertaking having been taken over by the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, respondent 1 served numberices on the companypanys employees that their services would numberlonger be required,as from October 1, 1962.
1577 of 1966.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. This appeal, by certificate, is directed against the judgment and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and 1053 raises the question of the scope of jurisdiction of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 4 of 1936 hereinafter referred to as the Act.
On respondent 1 companytesting the claim as also the jurisdiction of the Authority, the Authority raised certain preliminary.
The respondent did number appear.
N. Shroff for the appellant.
issues, namely 1 whether the said application was maintainable in view of the revocation of the companypanys licence, 2 whether the Authority had jurisdiction to determine the liability of respondent 1 for retrenchment companypensation before the amount thereof was ascertained under sec.
