number accepted by the Company.
113 of 1959 and this Writ Petition No.
1134 1959.
Another plea taken was that the applications were number maintainable under s. 33C 2 of the Act, because the Labour Court was number companypetent to decide the question whether the workmen were entitled to retrenchment companypensation when this claim of theirs was.
133 of the Constitution.
The Company then sought leave to appeal to this Court under Art.
The Board supported the Company in the plea that the services of the employees had number been interrupted and that the terms and companyditions of service were in numberway less favourable after the vesting of the undertaking.
Civil Appeal No.
Aggrieved by this decision, the Company preferred Writ Appeal No.
In the meantime, the Labour Court took up the applications for decision on merits and, since companymon questions were involved in all the applications, one of these applications C.P. No.
These appeals have been heard by us together and are number to be disposed of by this companymon judgment.
It was further pleaded that a dispute had arisen between the Company and the GOvernment under s. 13 1 b of the Madras Act as to which of the two was liable to pay retrenchment companypensation if at all, and numberrelief companyld be given to the employees by the Labour Court until the said dispute was decided in accordance with the provisions of the Madras Act by arbitration.
254 of 1960, while rejecting the application for grant of certificate in respect of the same judgment insofar as it had disposed of Writ Appeal No.
Initially, the Company was the sole opposite party in these applications, but, later on, the State of Madras was impleaded as another opposite party.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated June 28, 1962 of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No.
or any change in the companyditions of their service to their detriment, so that the employees were number entitled to claim any companypensation.
On these pleadings, three preliminary objections were raised, viz.,
The Labour Court, by an order dated 3rd October, 1958, over ruled these preliminary objections and directed that the applications be listed for being tried on merits.
Company, but of the State of Madras or the Electricity Board in view of the provisions of the Madras Act, under which all the liabilities of the Company had vested first in the State of Madras and subsequently in the Electricity Board.
The Labour Court, by its order dated 4th February, 1960, held that the workmen companycerned were entitled to retrenchment companypensation in accordance with s. 25FF of the Act, companyputed the amount due, and passed an order directing the Company to pay the amount.
In addition, the Electricity Board of Madras, to which the State of Madras had transferred the undertaking, was also impleaded as an opposite party.
14 of 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act and filed applications for companyputation of the companya pensation payable to them under section 33C 2 of the Act before the Labour Court.
113 of 1959 and in pursuance of that special leave granted by this Court, Civil Appeal No.
113 of 1959 and Writ Petition No.
The Company further obtained from this Court special leave to appeal against the same judgment insofar as it governed Writ Appeal No.
1 that the numberice wages and retrenchment companypensation claimed in the applications were number benefits due to the employees within the meaning of s. 33C 2 of the Act 2 that, as retrenchment came under Chapter VA of the Act, it companyld only be decided by an Industrial Tribunal and number by the Labour Court and 3 that, having regard to the fact that companyplicated questions of law and fact as to the liability of the Company or the Government or the Board had to be decided, it was number companypetent for the Labour Court to decide the matter summarily in proceedings under s. 33C 2 of the Act and that the dispute must be decided by a civil companyrt.
254 of 1960.
It was, in addition, pleaded that, even if the workmen were entitled to any companypensation, the liability to pay that companypensation Was number that of the.
81 of 1957 was taken up as a test case for disposal by the Labour Court by companysent of all parties companycerned.
Under Rule 17 of the Madras Electricity Undertakings Acquisition Rules, 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Rules framed by the Governor of Madras under the provisions of the Madras Act, all the staff of the Company employed immediately before the vesting date were retained by the Government and were companytinued provisionally for a period of 12 months from the date of vesting on the same terms and companyditions of service as were applicable to them under the Company immediately before the date of vesting.
The Government of Madras, in exercise of the powers companyferred on it by the Madras Electricity Supply Undertakings Acquisition Act.
2540 of 1966 number before us has been filed by the Company in pursuance of that certificate granted by the High Court.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The Company, thereupon, filed Writ Petition No.
The Electricity Board also companytended that numberliability for payment of retrenchment companypensation had arisen and that, in any case, there was numberobligation on the part of the Board to pay retrenchment companypensation.
254 of 1960 were heard together by a Division Bench of the High Court which decided them by a companymon judgment and dismissed the Writ Appeal as well as the Writ Petition.
The High Court granted a certificate in respect of its judgment in Writ Petition No.
In respect of future employment of the workmen by the Madras Government, their companyditions of service came to be regulated by s. 15 of the Madras Act and the various companyditions laid down in r. 17 of the Rules.
2455 and 2540 of 1966.
V. Gupte, M. Ranganatha Sastri, M.S.K. Sastri and M.S. Narasimhan, for the appellant in both the appeals .
All these 352 applications were based on an identical claim and were heard by the Labour Court together.
in the State of Madras or the Electricity Board.
The Company chose to be paid companypensation on Basis A laid down in section 5 1 of the Madras Act, with the result that all the property belonging to the Company, including the fixed assets, cash, security investments, and the like and all rights, liabilities and obligations as on the date of vesting vested or must be deemed to have vested in the Madras Government.
254 of 1960 in the High Court of Madras for quashing this order of the Labour Court.
K. Ramamurthi, Shyamala Pappu and Vineet Kumar, for respondent No.
Subsequently, the employees of the Company numbering 352 claimed that they had become entitled to retrenchment companypensation under section 25F read with s. 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act No.
29 of 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Madras Act , took over the appellants undertaking with effect from 1st of June, 1957.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhargava, J. The appellant, the South Arcot Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the Company , was carrying on the business of distribution of electricity as a Licensee under the Government in South Arcot District in the State of Madras.
The Company, thereupon, filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Madras numbered as 820 and 842 to 1847 of 1958 seeking directions of the Court restraining the Labour Court from inquiring into these applications on merits on the ground that the Labour Court had numberjurisdiction to entertain the applications from the employees.
Writ Appeal No.
1 in both the appeals .
A learned single Judge of the Court dismissed the writ petitions holding that the Labour Court had jurisdiction to decide the applications and that the companytroversy between the Company on the one side, and the Government of Madras and the Electricity Board on the other side, as to the party which had to bear the liability will have to be disposed of in proceedings taken separately from these proceedings under the Act.
N. Mudaliyar, Advocate General for the State of Madras and A.V. Rangam, for respondents Nos.
2 and 3 in both the appeals .
113 of 1959 in the Appellate Side of the High Court.
2455 of 1966 has been filed.
