U.P ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD. versus R. K. SHUKLA AND ANR. ETC.

U.P. ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD.

R. K. SHUKLA AND ANR. ETC.

April 30, 1969

(J. C. SHAH AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.]

Industrial Dispute-Electricity undertaking taken once by U .. P. State Electricity Board under s. 6 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910-Retrenchment compensation claimed by workmen-Dispute whether to be decided under Industrial Di•pute• Act, 1947 (Central) or under U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-,\'ec. 6-H(2) of U.P. Act-Jurisdiction of Labour Court under-c Whether can decide ·question as to retrenchment con1pensation being pay-able-Effect of s, 6-0-Board whether liable to pay the campensation-Ef]ect of ss. 6 and 7 of Indian Electricity Act and Cl. V of Sixth Schedule.

In exercise of the power under s. 6 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 the undertakings of the appellant company at Allahabad and Lucknow were takeh over by the State Electricity Board, U.P. with effect from September 17, 1964. The wor)anen of the company were taken into the employment of the Board without any break in continuity of employment. Certain workmen of the Allahabad undertaking filed before the Labour Conrt applications under s. 6-H(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act 1947, for payment of ntrenchment compensation and salary in lieu of notice. group of workmen ·from the Lucknow undertaking also sub-mitted applications underi. s. 6-H(2) with the same prayers; in addition they claimed compensation fur accumulated earned leave not enjoyed by them till September 16,. 1964, The Labour Court allowed the. applications. The Company appealed to this Court by special leave. According to the company there was no retrenchment of the workmep because, they had voluntarily left the servic'e of the company to join the: service of the Board with· no break in their ~rvice. The questions that fell for consideration were : (i) Whether the .matter was to be decided under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or those of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: (ii) Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction under s. 6-H(2) of the U.P. Act to decide the applications or because of there being dis-pute as to the liability to pay retrenchment compensation the matter was in view of item 10 of the second schedule to the U.P. Act within the ex-clusive jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal; (iii) Whether s. 6-0 of the U.P. Act also necessita~d that the question of liability to pay retrenchment compensation be first determined; (iv) Whether in view of ss. 6 & 7 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and ss. 57 & 57A of the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 read with Cl. V of the sixth schedule thereto. the liability to pay retrenchment compensation was that of the Board and not that of the company; (v) Whether the claim. of the Lucknow workmen for compensation for earned I~ave not enjoyed by them was allowable·.

Held : (i) Unde'r the Seventh Schedule to the constitution legisla· tion in respect _of 'Trade Union Industrial and Labour Disputes' fallSt within Entry 22 of the Conclll'ftlnl List and both the State and the Union are competent to legislate in respect of that field of legislation. Aci; I of 1957 added to the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, s. 6-R(2) which enacts that the rights and li-'b~lities of employers and workmen relating to lay-off and retrenchment shalt be dete'rmined in accordance with the provisions of

ss. 6-J to 6-0. Act 1 of 1957 received the assent of the President and by virtue of Art, 254(2) of the Constitution a, 6-R(2) of the U.P. Act prevails notwithstanding any prior law made by the Parliament, The rishta and obligations of the parties had therefore to be decided under the U.P. Act includina s. 6-R(2), [511 H-512 DJ

Rohtak & Hisrar Districts Electric S11pply Company v. Stal< of U.P., (1966] II L.L.J. 330, distinguished.

(ii) Section 6-H(l) and (2) of the U.P. Act were substantially the same as sub-'5, (I) and (2) of s. 33-C of the Central Act and cuet decided by this Court under the latter provisions were applicable in the ir.terpretation of the former. According to the rule laid down ins. 6-H(2) th.! Labour Coun was competent to determine what each workman was entitled to receive from the employer by way of retrenchment compensa-tion payable in terms of money and the denial of liability of the company did not affect the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. Where, however, as in 1hc present case, t'ie dispute was 1.\'hether the workmen had been retrenched and computation of the amount of compensation \\'as subsidiary or incidental, the Labour Court had na authority to trespass upon the pcwers of the JDdustrial Tribunal which had exclusive jurisdiction under item 10 of the second schedule of the U.P. Act to decide disputes relating to retrenchment. [514 B-D-517 FJ

The Cenral Bank of India, Ltd. v. P. S. Rajagopalan etc. [1964] 3 S.C.R. 140 and Bombay Gas Co. Ltd, v. Gopal Bhlva and Others, [1964] 3 S.C.R. 709, applied.

The Board of Directors of the South Arcot Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. N. K. Mohammad Khcn etc .. [1969] 2 S.C.R. 902, explained.

Chief Mining Engineer, East India Coal Co. Ltd. v. Rameswar a11d Other.r, [1968] I S.C.R. 140, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. R. L. Khandelwal, [1968] I L.L.J. 589 and Punjab Narional Bank Ltd. v. K. L. Kharbanda, [1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 977, referred to, (iii) Assuming that the Labour Court had jurisdiction to determine the liability of the company to pay retrenchment compensation no order awarding retrenchment compensation could still be made without recording finding that workmen y.•ere retrenched and compensation was payable !cir the retrenchment. For s. 6-0 of the U.P. Act deprives the workmen of the right to retrenchment compensation in the conditions mentioned therein. The company asserted that the conditions precedent to the exercise of the jurisdicticn did not exist while the workmen asserted the existence of the conditions. Without deciding the issue the Labour Court could not compute the amount of compensation payable to the workmen on the assumption that the workmeri had been retrenched and their claim fell within s. 6-0. [SI 8 B: 519 B.q

(iv) Sections 6 and 7 of the lni:lian Electricity Act did not support the case of the Compar.y that the liability was enforceahle against the Board after it took over the u~dertaking. Under these sections when the undertaking vests in the purchaser, any debt, mortgage or similar obligation attaches to the purcha~ noney in substitution of the undertaking. 1bc liability to pav retrenchment compensation is debt : if it arises on trans'fer it will attach to 1he purchase money payable to ·the Company in substitution of the undertaking. [521 A-Bl

(v) The provisions of ss. 57 and 57A of the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, also did not assist the case of the Company. These sections deal with the licencee's charges to consumers and the Rating Co1nmittees. In the Sixth Schedule to the Act (incorporated into every license by s. 57 aforesaid) it is provided by cl. IV that certain amount shall be appropriated towards Contingencies Reserve from the revenues of each year of account. Clause V then provides f"r the appropriation of the Contingencies Reserve : it requires the undertaking to hand over the Contingencies Reserve to the purchaser. If the retrenchment compensation becomes properly due to the employees of the Company, it would, by virtue' of cl. V sub-cl. (2) proviso, be charged upon the Contingencies Reserve and the balanco alone would be handed over to the purchaser. In th• present case however there was no finding by the Labour Court that the Contingencies Reserve had been paid over to the pw·chaser. [521 C-522 CJ

(vi) The claim of the Lucknow workmen to compensation in lieu of earned leave not enjoyed by them could not be allowed. After the Com-pany closed its bUSJoess it could obviously not give any earned leave to these workmen and the latter could not claim it. In the absence of statutory provision to that effect no such compensation was payable. [522 E]

CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION :

Civil Appeals Nos. 1567

of 1968, 585 to 1026 and 1027 to 1082 of 1969.

Appeals by special leave from the orders dated March 28, 19~8 and July 20, 1968 of the Labour Court (II), U.P., Lucknow m Misc. Cases Nos. 102 of 1965 etc.

M. C. Chagla, Harish Chandra, H. K. Puri and Bishambar Lal for the appellant _(in all the appeals).

J. P. Goyal and V. C. Prashar, for respondent No. 1 (in all the appeals) .

S. P. Nayar, for the Attorney-General (in C,As. Nos. 585 to 1026 and 1027 to 1082 of 1969).

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Shah, J. These tiu'ee groups of appeals arise out of orders made by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (II), u.n., Lucknow awarding retrenchment compensation to certain employees of the U.P. Electric Supply Company Ltd. (in liquidation). In the last group of appeals orders of the Labour Court awarding in addition thereto compensation for earned leave not enjoyed by the employees are also challenged.

The U.P. Electric Supply Company Ltd.-hereinafter called 'the Company'-held two licences issued in 1914 by the Govern-ment of U.P. for generating and distributing electricity within the towns of Allahabad and Lucknow. The periods of the licenses expired in 1964. Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 12(i) in each of the said licenses and in exercise of the power under s. 6 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the State Electricity Board, U.P.-heieinafter referred to as "the Board"-t;JOk over the ~def!aking of.the Company at Allahabad and Lucknow from the mtd-ntght of September 16, 1964. The Company accordingly

ceased to carry on the business of generation and distribution of electricity in the areas covered by the original licences. All the workmen of the undertakings at Allahabad and Lucknow were taken over in the employment of the Board with effect from September 17, 1964, without any break in the continuity of employment.

On December 22, 1964, 443 workmen employed in the Allahabad undertaking filed before the Labour Court, applications under s. 6-H(21 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for payment of retrenchment compensation and salary in lieu of notice. The workmen submitted that fresh letters of appointment were issued by the Board on September 16, 1964, taking them in tho employment oi the Board with effect from September 17, 1964 "in the posts and positions which they previously held", but with-out giving credit for' their past services with the Company. The workmen contended that they were entitled to retrenchment com-pensation and salary in lieu of notice, and prayed for computation of thoce benefits in terms of money and for directions to the Com-pany to pay them the amount so computed.

group of 56 workmen employed at the Company's under-taking at Lucknow also submitted applications under s. 6H(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, for payment of retrenchment compensation and salary in lieu of notice and also for compensa-tion for accumulated earned leave not enjoyed by them till SeptEmber 16, 1964.

Jn the applications filed by the workmen of the Allahabad undertaking, the Labour Court awarded to each workman re-trenchment compensation at the rates specified in the order and elso one month's salary and costs. To each workman of the Lucknow undertaking the Labour Court awarded retrenchment compensation at the rate specified, salary in lieu of one month's notice, and also wages for 30 days for earned leave not enjoyed by the workman before the closure of the undertakin~. and cost~. The Company has appealed to this Court against the orders with special leave.

The orders for payment of retrenchment

compensation are

resi,ted by the Company on two grounds-

( i) that the Labour Court was incompetent to enter-tain and decide the applications for awarding retrenchment compensation; and

(ii) that the workmen were not in fact retrenched, and in any event since the workmen were admit-ted to the service of the Board witMut break in continuity, and on terms not less favourable than the terms enjoyed by them with the Com-

pany, the Company was under no liability to pay retrenchment compensation.

Some argunient was advanced before us that in determining matters relating to the award of retrenchment compensation, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and not the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7, apply. The question is academic, because on the yoints in controversy between the parties, the statutory proviSlOllll of the Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7, and the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are substantially the same. We may, however, briefly refer to this argument since, relying upon a, judgment of this Court to be presently noticed, counsel for the workmen insisted that s. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act alone may apply.

After the enactment of the Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7, by the Dominion Parliament, the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was enacted by the Provincial Legislature. The scheme of the two Acts is substantially the same. Chapter V-A relating to lay-off and retrenchment was added in the Industrial Disputes Act by Act 43 of 1953 with effect from October 24, 1953. From time to time amendments were made in the provisions of the Act. By s. 25-J (2) it was proVided:

"For the rC!lloval cif doubts, it is hereby declared · that notlring COl).tained in this Chapter shall be deemed to affect the pf!i>visions of any other law for the time being in force ill: any State in so far as that law provides for the settlemtnt of industrial disputes, but the rights and liabilities of employers and workmen in so far as they relate to ~y-off and retrenchment shall be deter-mined in accardance with the provisions of this Chapter."

After this sub-sectio!l was incorporated in the Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7, group of St:ctions including s. 6-R were incorporated in the U.P. Industril!l Disputes Act by U.P. Act 1 of 1957. Section 6-R(2) pro'l'ided:

"For the !llinoval of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in Sections 6-H to 6-R shall be deemed to affect the provision of any other law for the time being in force so far as that law provides for the settlement of industrial disputes,. but the rights and liabi-lities of employers 11nd workmen in so far as they relate to lay-off and retrenchment shall be determined in accordance wit!l the provisions of Sections 6-H ,o 6-Q."

By virtue of s. 6-R(2) the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Dis-putes Act, _.,rima facie, apply in the matters of lay-off and r~trench­ment, because under the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution

legislation in respect of "Trade Unions, Industrial and Labour Disputes" falls within Entry 22 of the Concurrent List and both the State and the Union are compe•ent to legislate in respect of that field of legislation. Whereas by adding s. 25-J (2) it was enacted that under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the rights and liabilities of employers and workmen in so far as they relate to lay-off and retrenchment shall be determined in accordacce with the provisions of Ch. V-A of that Act. by the U.P. Act as amended by Act 1 of 1957, s. 6-R(2) enacts that •.he rights and · liabilities of employers and workmen relating to lay-off and re-trenchment shall be determined in accordance with .the provisions of ss. 6-J to 6-Q.

Competence of the State Legislature to enacts. 6-R(2) is not denied. Act 1 of 1957 received the assent of the President and by virtue of Art. 254(2) of the Constitutions. 6-R(2) of the U.P. Act prevails, notwithstanding any prior law made by the Parlia-ment. The provisions of the U.P. Act including s. 6-R(2) there-fore apply in detem1ining the rights and obligations of the parties in respect of retrenchment compensation. The observation to the contrary made by this Court in Rohtak & Hissar Districts Electric Supply Company v. State of U.P.(1) which primarily raised dis-pute relating to the validity of certain model standing orders pro-ceeded upon concession made ~t the Bar, and cannot be regard-ed as decisive. Since the relevant provisions of the two Acts on the matter in controversy in these groups of appeals are not materially different, we do not think it necessary in this case to refer the question to larger Bench.

We, accordingly, propose to refer only to the provi>;ons of the

U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 4-A of the U.P. Act authorises the State Government to constitute one or more Labour Courts for the adjudication of industrial disputes relating !o any matter specified in the First Schedule and for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under the Act. The items specified in the First Schedule are-

" I. The propriety or legality of an order pas>d by an employer under th~ Standing Orders;

2. The applicat'on and interpretation of Standing Orders;

). Di,char~c or dismissal of workman includin~ r~inslatcmcnt of. or grant of relief to. workmc11 wwngfully dismissed:

-1. Withdrawal of any customary concession <'r privilege;

11) J1%C•] 11 L.1 . .J. JJO.

5. lliegality or otherwise of strike or lock-out; and

6. All matters other than those specified in the Second Schedule." ·

Section 4-B authoriscis the State. Government to constitute one or more Industrial Tribunals for the adjudication of industrial dis-B putes relating to any matter whether specified in the First Schedule or the Second Schedwe. Item 10 of the Second Schedule relates to "Retrenchment of workmen and closure of establishment". Prima facie, disputes relating to retrenchment of workmen and closure of establishment fall within the exclusive competence of the Industrial Tribunal, and not within the competence of the Labour Court constituted under s. 4-A. The Company had expressly raised cc;intenJion that they had not retrenched the workmen and that ~ wor1crnen had voluntarily abandoned the Company's service by seeking employment with the Board even before the Company Closed its undertaking. The workmen contended by their petitions filed before the Labour Courts that they were retrenched, the Company contended that the workmen had voluntarily abandoned the employment under the Company because they found it more profitable to take up employment under the Board without any break in the same post and on the same terms and conditions on which they were employed by the Cooipany. This clearly raises the question whether there wail tttrenchment of workmen, which gave rise to liability to pay retr¢U,chment compensation. dispute relating to retrenchment is eJ!Q]usively within the competence of the Indus-trial Tribunal by .virtue of item 10 of the Second Schedule to the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, and is not within the competence of the Labour Court. Section 6-H of the U.P. Act provides :

" ( 1) Where: any money is due to workman from an employer unqer the provisions of Sections 6-J to 6-R or under settlement or award, or under an award given . by an adjudicator or the State Industrial Tribunal appointed or cO!).stituted under this Act, before the com-mencement of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes (Amendment aiill Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1956, the workman ril!Y. without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, •e an application to the State Govern-ment for the re(iovery of the money due to him, and if the State Govettiment is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall iss!lF certificate for that amount to the Collector who '$all proceed to recover the same as if it were an arreal of land revenue.

(2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any benefit which is capable of being com-puted in terms of money, the amount at which such

benefit should be computed may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be determined by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the State Government, and the amount so determined may be recovered as provided for in sub-section (1).

Under s. 6-H(2) the Labour Court was competent to determine what each workman was entitled to receive from the employer by way of retrenchmeint compensation payable in terms of money and the denial of liability by the Company did not affect the jurjs-diction of the Labour Court.

In several decisions of this Court the inter-relation between sub-ss. ( 1) & (2) o1 s. 33-C (wh;;h are substantially in the same terms as sub-ss. (I) & (2) of s. 6-H of the U.P. Industrial Dis-putes Act) was examined. It was held by this Court in The Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P. S. Rajagopalan etc.(') that the scope of s. 33-C(2) is wider than that of s. 33-C( I). Claims made under s. 33-C( 1) can only be tl1ose which arr. referrable to I> settlement, aw<>rd or the relevant provisions of Ch. V-A, but those limitations are not to be found in s. 33-C(2). The three cate-gories of claims mentioned in s. 33-C( I) fall under s. 33-C(2) and in that sense s. 33-C(2) can itself be deemed to be kind of execution proceeding, but it is possible that claims not based on settlements, awards or made under the provisions of Ch. V-A may also be competent under s. 33-C(2). Elaborating this thesis Gaiendragadkar, J., who delivered the judgment of the Court observed (pp. 155-156) :

"There is no doubt that the three categories of claims mentioned in s. 33C( 1) fall under s. 33C(2) and in that sense, s. 33C(2) can itself bC deemed to be kind of execution proceeding; but it is possible that claims not based on settlements, awards or made under the provisions of Chapter V-A, may also be competent under s. 33C(2) and that may illustrate its wider scope. We would, however, like to indicate some of the claims which would not fall under s. 33C(2), because they formed the subject matter of the appeals which have been grouped together for our decision along with the appeals with which we are dealing at present. If an employ~~ is dismissed or demoted and it is his case that the dismissal or demotion is wrongful, it would not be open to him to make claim for the recovery of his salary or wages under s. 33C(2). His demotion or dis-missal nrny give rise to an industrial dispute which may

(I) (1964:) S.C

be appropriately tried, but once it is shown that the employer has dismissed or demoted him, claim that the dismissal or demotion is unlawful and, therefore, the employee continues to be the workman of the employer and is entitled to the benefits due to him under pre-existing cont~act, cannot be made under s. 33C(2)."

The same view was reiterated in Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. v. Gopal Bhiva and Others(').

Mr. Goyal on behalf of the workmen, however, contended that in recent judgment of this Court different view has been expressed. He invited our attention to The Board of Directors of the South Arcot Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. N. K. Mohammad Khan, etc. ([2]). In that case the Electricity under-taking was taken over by the Government of Madras in exercise of the powers conferred by the Madras Electricity Supply Under-takings (Acquisition) Act, 1954, and the employees of tlie unde&.; tal!:ing ,were taken over by the new employer. The employees· clainied retrenchment compensation from the old employer under s. 25FF, of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was urged before this Court that the Labour Court was incompetent to decide the claini for retrenchment compensation. This Court observed that s. 25FF (b) applied as the terms of service under the new employer were less favourable than those under the old employer, and under the terms of ss. 15 ( 1) & (2) of the Acquisition Act and ss. 9A and 10 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, liability to pay retrenchment compensation rested upon the previous employer and on that account the Labour Court was competent to entertain the petitions under s. 33C(2). The language of s. 25FF in the view of the Court made it perfectly clear that if the right to compensation accrued under the Act, the worknien became entitled to receive retrenchment compensation, when under the Madras Act the undertaking stood transferred to the State Government from the Company. Referring to the contention that the Labour Court was not compe-tent to determine the liability to pay retrenchment compensation, where the liability itself was denied, the Court referred to the judgments of this Court in Chief Mining Engineer, East India Coal Co. [,,Id. v. Rameswar.and Others(•); State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. R. L. Khandelwal('); Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. K. L. Kharbanda("); Centra1 Bank. of India v. P. S. Rajagopa-lan and Others('); and Bombay Gas Company Ltd. v. Gopal Bhiva and Others([1]), and proceeded to observe that the right (I) [1964J 3 S.C.ll. 709. (2) [1969] 2 S.C.R. 902. (3) (1968] 1 S.C.ll. 140. (4) [1968] 1 L.L.J. 589. (5) [1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 977. (6) [1964] 3 S.C.R. 140.

which has been claimed by the various workmen in their applica-tions under s. 33C(2) of the Act was right which accrued to them under s. 25FF nf tire Act and was an existing right at the time when those applications were made, and the Labour Court had jurisdiction to decide, in dealing with the applications under that provision, whether such right did or did not exist. The mere denial of that right by the Company, it was said, could not take away its jurisdiction and that the order of the Labour Court was competently made.

The decision in the Central Bank of India v. P. S. Ra/ago-pa/an and Others('), to which we have already referred, makes it clear that all disputes relating ~o claims which may be computed in terms ,1f money are not necessarily within the tem1s of s. 33C(2). Again in Chief Mining Engineer, East India Coal Co. Ltd. v. Rameswar and Others('), Shela!, J., observed:

" ...... that the right to the benefit which is sought to be computed [under s. 33C(2)] must be an existing one, that is to say, alre&.dy adjudicated upon or provid-ed for and must arise in the course of and in relation to the relatiomhip between an industrial work-man and his employer. Since the scope of sub-s. (2) is wider than that of sub-s. ( 1) and the sub-section is not confined to cases arising under an award, settlement or under the provisions of Ch. V-A, there is no reason to hold that benefit provided for under statute or scheme made thereunder, without there being anyJhing contrary under such statute ors. 33C(2), cannot fall within sub-s. (2). Consequently, the benefit provided in the bonus scheme made under the Coal Mines Provi-dent Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948, which remains to be computed must fall under sub-s. (2) and the Labour Court therefore had jurisdiction to entertain and try such claim, it being claim in respect of an existing right arising from the relationship of an indus-trial workman and his employer."

That judgment clearly indicates that in order that claim may be adjudicated upon under s. 33C(2), there must be an existing right and the right must arbe under an award, settlement or under the provisions of Ch. V-A. or it must be benefit provided by statute or scheme made thereunder and there must be nothing contrary under such statute or s. 3 3C ( 2). But the possibility of mere claim arisin!( under Ch. V-A is not envisaged by the Court in that case as confcrrinµ jurisdiction upon the Labour Court to decide matters which "' essentially within the jurisdict;on of the Industrial Tribunal.

(tl [1964] 1 S.CR. 140.

(11 (1968] t S.CR 14-0.

The legislative intention disclosed by ss. 33-C(l) and 33-C(2) is fairly clear. Under s. 33-C ( 1) where any money is due to workman from an employer under settlement or an award or under the provisions of Ch. V-A, the workman himself, or any other person authorised by him in writing in that behalf, may make an application to the appropriate Government to recover of the money due to him. Where the workman who is entitled to receive from the emplnyer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, applies ir, that behalf, the Labour Court may under s. 33-C(2) decide the ques-tions arising as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit shall be computed. Section 33-C(2) is wider than s. 33C(l). Matters which do not fall within the terms of s. 33C(l) may, if the workman is shown to be entitled to receive the benefits, fall within the terms of s. 3 3C ( 2) . If the liability arises from an award, settlement or under the provisions of Ch. V-A, or by virtue of statute or scheme made there-under, mere denial by the employer may not be sufficient to nega-tive the claim under s, 33-C(2) before the Labour ~ourt. Where however the right to retrenchment compensation which is the foundation of the claim is itself matter which is exclusively within the competence of the Industrial Tribunal to be adjudicated upon reference, it would be straining the language of section 33C(2) to hold that the question whether there has been retrench-ment may be decided by the Labour Court. The power of the Labour Court is .~ c<impute the compensation claimed to be pay-able to the workmen on the footing that there has been retrench-ment of the workm~II· Where retrenchment is conceded, and the only matter in disp~ is that by virtue of s. 25FF no liability to pay conpensation has arisen the Labour Court will be competent to decide the questjOD. In such case the question is one of computation an<ilrnot .of detennination, of the conditions precedent to the accrual of liability. Where, however, the dispute is whether workmen have been retrenched and computation of the amount is subsidiary or incidental, in our judgment, the Labour Court will have no authority to' trespass upon the powers of the Tribunal with which it is statu~orily invested. In the umeported judgment of this Court in './:he Qoard of Directors of the South Arcot Electri-G city Distribution Co.'1Ltd. v. N. K. Mohammed Khan, etc. ([1]) ap-parently the only argument advanced before this Court was that s. 25FF applied to that case having regard to the fact that the tenns of employmedi under the new employer were not less favourable than those immediately applicable to them before the transfer, and !Ji. Court proceeded to hold that the Labour Court was competent to d~ennine the compensation.

The finding that the Labour Coun was imcompetent to decide the applications of the workmen would be sufficient to dispose of the appeals before us. But other arguments were advanced before us, and which have an important bearing on the claims made : we propose briefly to deal with these arguments.

Assuming that the Labour Court had jurisdiction to determine the liability of the Company to pay retrenchment comeensation no order awarding retrenchment compensation could still be made without recording finding that there was retrenchment of the workmen and compensation was payable for retrenchment. Section 6-0 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (which in its phraseology is somewhat different from s. 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act) provides :

"Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 6-N no workman shall be entitled to compensation under that section by reason merely of the fact that there has been change of employers in any cas" where the ownership or management of the undertaking in which. he is employed is transferred, whether by agreement or by operation of law, from one employer to another :

Provided that-

( a) the service of the workman has not been inter-rupted by reason of the transfer;

( b) the tenns and conditions of service applicable to the workman after such transfer are not in any way less favourable than those applicable to him immediately before the transfer; and

( c) the employer to whom the ownership or mana-gement of the undertaking is so transferred is, under the terms of the transfer or otherwise, legally liable to pay to the workman, in the event of his retrenchment, compensation on the basis that his service has been continuous and has not been interrupted by the transfer."

In the present groups of appeals it is common ground that 1here was no interruption resulting from the undertaking being ·taken over by the :Soard. The agreements between the Board and the workmen to admit the workmen into employment of the Board were reached before the undertakings of the Company were taken over. The Company contended that the terms and conditions of service applicable to workmen after the transfer were not in any way less favourable to the workmen than those applicable to them immediately before the undertakings were takea over, and that the employer to whom the ownership or manage-

ment of thei undertakings were so transferred was, under the terms of the transfer or otherwise, legally liable to pay to the workmen, in tl}C event of their retrenchment, compensation on the basis that their services had been continuous and had not been interrupted by the taking over. The workmen denied that claim. The Labour Court could i:ward compensation only if it determined the matter in controversy in favour of the workmen it could not assume that the conditions of the proviso to s. 6-0 were fulfilled. Section 6-0 is in tenns negative. It deprives the workmen of the right to retrenchment compensation in the conditions mentioned therein. The Company asserted that the conditions precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction did not exist. The workmen asserted the existence of the conditions. Without deciding the issue, the Labonr Court could not compute the amount of compensation payable to the workmen. On the assumption that the workmen had been retrenched and their claim fell within the proviso to s. 6-0. It was urged by Mr. Goyal on behalf of the workmen that this plea was not raised or argued before the. Labour Court, and it cannot be permitted to be raised in this Court. But this conten-tion was raised in the reply filed by the Company; and the judg-ment of the Labour Court does indicate that its authority to decide that question was disputed. We are unable to hold that the objection though raised was not urged before the Labour Court, and on that. account to confirm the decision of the Labour Court which until the matt~r in controversy was decided could not be rendered. Even; if, therefore, the Labour Court was competent to entertain the dispute relating to award of retrenchment com-pensation, the order made by the Labour Court must be Set aside. One more contention raised at !)le Bar by Mr. Chagla for the Company may be considered. It<\vas urged that the ·,obligation to pay retrenchment compensation in the event of liability arising must in law be deemed to be taken over by the Board. In The Board of Directors of the South rcot Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. v. N. K. Mohammad Khan, etc.([1]), to which we have already made reference, it was contended on behalf of the Electr;city Company that the liability to pay retrenchm~nt com-pensation did not ~f on. the licensee, but on the Madras Govern-ment This Court.held; having regard to the scheme of the Act that if retrenchment compensation is jJayable, it is the original undertaking which remains liable, and not the undertaking which takes over the business. Counsel however relied upon ss. 6 and 7 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, in support of his plea that the liability to pay retrenchment compensation rests · upon the.

(I) [1969) 2 S.C.R. 902.

!<!Sup. CJ/69-4

undertaking which takes over the undertaking. Section 6 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, provides :

" ( I ) Where license has been granted to pay person, not being local authority, the State Electricity Board 3hall,-

(a) in the case of license granted before the com-mencement of the Indian Electricity (Amend-ment) Act, 1959, on the expiration of each such period as is specified in the license; and

have the option of purchasing the undertaking and such option shall be exercised by the State Electricity Board serving upon the licensee notice in writing of not less than one year requiring the licensee to sell the under-taking to it at the expiry of the relevant period referred to in this sub-section.

In tl1e present case notice was given of termination of the license after the expiry of the period of the original license and the Board took over the undertaking of the Company. Section 7 of the Indian Electricity Act provides :

"Where an undertaking is sold under section .... 6, then upon the completion of the sale or on the date on which the undertaking is delivered to the intending purchaser under . . . . . . . . sub-section ( 6) of section

6 ..........

(i) the undertaking shall vest in the purchaser . . . . . . . . . . free from any debt, mortgage or similar obligation of the licensee or attaching to the under-taking:

Provided that any such debt, mortgage or similar obligation shall attach to the purchase money in subs-titution for the undertaking;

(ii) the rights, powers, authorities, duties and obli-gations of the licensee under his license shall stand trans-ferred to ilie purchaser and such purchaser shall be deemed to be the licensee :

Provided that where the undertaking is sold or deli-vered to State Electricity Board or the State Govern-ment, the license shall cease to have furilier operation."

U. P. ELECT. CO. V. ll. K. SHUKLA (Shah, J.)

It is clear that when the undertaking vests in the purchaser, a•y debt mortgage or similar obligation attaches to the purchase money in substitutidn of the undertaking. The liability to pay retrenchment compensation is debt : if it arises on transfer it will attach to the purchase money payable to the Company in substitution for the undertaking. Sections 6 and . 7 of the lndiall Electricity Act do not support the case of the Company that tke liability is enforceable against the Board after it takes over the undertakings.

The provisions bf ss. 57 and 57 of the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, also do not assist the case of the Company. Sections 57 & 57 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, deal with the licensee's charges to consumers and the Rating Com-mittees. By the Sixth Schedule dealing with financial principles and their application, it is provided by cl. IV that certain amount shall be appropria~d towards Contingencies Reserve from tlle revenues of each year of account. By cl. V of the Sixth Schedule it is provided :

"( 1) The Contingencies Reserve shall not be drawn upon during d:te currency of the licence except to meet such charges as the State Government may approve as boing-,

(a) ex~s or loss of profits arising out of acci-dents, strikes or circumstances which the mana-gement could not have prevented;

(b) expen~s on replacement or removal of plant or works 'other than expenses requisite for normal main~ance or renewal;

( c) com~nsation payable under any law for the time bieing in force and for which no other pro-vision. is made.

(2) On fue purchase of the undertaking, the Con-tingencies Relljerve, after deduction of the amounts drawn under suti•patagraph ( 1 ) , shall be handed over to the purchaser a!id maintained as such Contingencies Reserve:

Provided.that where the undertaking is purchased by the Board or the State Government, the amount of the Reserve co~uted as above shall, after further deduc-tion of the api.ount of compensation, if any, payable-Jo the employees of the outgoing licensee under any law for the time being in force, be handed over to the Board or the State Government, as the case may be."

Clause V only provides for the appropriation of the Contingencies Reserve : it requires an undertaking to hand over .the Contingen-cies Reserve to the purchaser. If any amount of compensation is payable to the employees of the outgoing licensee under any law for the time being ~ force, it is chargeable to the Contingencies Reserve. Jf the retrenchment compensation becomes properly due to the employees of the Company, it would, by virtue of cl. V sub-cl. (2) proviso, be charged upon the Contingencies Reserve and the balance alone would be handed over to the purchaser. ·

It was urged that the Contingencies Reserve has been paid over to the purchaser. There is, however, no finding by the Labour Court m that behalf. If it be found in appropriate proceedings that retrenchment compensation is payable to the workmen and the Contingencies Reserve out of which it is payable has been handed over to the Board, the charge for payment of that amount may attach to th"at amount. On that matter we need express no ooin.ion at this stage.

Finally it was contended--and that contention relates only to the cases of 56 workmen in the Lucknow undertaking-that the workmen who had not availed themselves of earned leave were entitled to compensation equal to thirty days wa¥.es· But we do not think that any such compensation is statutorily payable. So long a! the Company was carrying on its business, it was obliged to give facility for enjoying earned leave to its workmen. But after the Company closed its business, it could not obviously give any earned leave to those workmen, nor could the workmen claim any compensation for not availing themselves of the leave. In the absence of any provision in the statute governing the right to com-pensation for earned leave not availed of by the workmen before closure or transfer of an undertaking, we do not think that any such compensation is payable.

On the view taken by us that the Labour Court was incom-

petent to detennine the question as to liability to pay retrench-ment compensation, these appeals must be allowed and the peti-tions under s. 6-H (2) filed by the respondents must be dismissed. There will be no order as to costs throughout.

Appeals allowed.