Bhargava, J. - (1.) 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 Government of Madras, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by the Madras Electricity Supply Undertakings (Acquisition) 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 company chose to be paid compensation 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. 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 continued provisionally for a period of 12 months from the date of vesting on the same terms and conditions of service as were applicable to them under the company immediately before the date of vesting. In respect of future employment of the workmen by the Madras Government, their conditions of service came to be regulated by Section 15 of the Madras Act and the various conditions laid down in Rule 17 of the rules. Subsequently, the employees of the company numbering 352 claimed that they had become entitled to retrenchment compensation under Section 25-F, read with Section 25-FF of the Industrial Disputes Act No. 14 of 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and filed applications for computation of the compensation payable to the under Section 33-C(2) of the Act before the Labour Court. All these 352 applications were based on an identical claim and were heard by the Labour Court together. Initially, the company was the sole opposite party in these applications, but, later on, the State of Madras was impleaded as another opposite party. In addition, the Electricity Board of Madras, to which the State of Madras had transferred the undertaking, was also impleaded as an opposite party. The company contested these applications on various grounds, inter alia pleading that there had been no break in the service of the employees or any change in the conditions of their service to their detriment, so that the employees were not entitled to claim any compensation. Another plea taken was that the applications were not maintainable under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, because the Labour Court was not competent to decide the question whether the workmen were entitled to retrenchment compensation when this claim of theirs was not accepted by the company. It was, in addition, pleaded that, even if the workmen were entitled to any compensation, the liability to pay that compensation was not that of the 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 Electricity Board also contended that no liability for payment of retrenchment compensation had arisen and that, in any case, there was no obligation on the part of the Board to pay retrenchment compensation. The Board supported the company in the plea that the services of the employees had not been interrupted and that the terms and conditions of service were in no way less favourable after the vesting of the undertaking in the State of Madras or the Electricity Board. It was further pleaded that a dispute had arisen between the company and the Government under Section 13(1)(b) of the Madras Act as to which of the two was liable to pay retrenchment compensation if at all, and no relief could 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. On these pleadings, three preliminary objections were raised, viz. : (1) that the notice, wages and retrenchment compensation claimed in the applications were not benefits due to the employees within the meaning of Section 33-C(2) of the Act; (2) that, as retrenchment came under Chapter V-A of the Act, it could only be decided by an Industrial Tribunal and not by the Labour Court; and (3) that, having regard to the fact that complicated questions of law and fact as to the liability of the company or the Government or the Board had to be decided, it was not competent for the Labour Court to decide the matter summarily in proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Act and that the dispute must be decided by a Civil Court. The Labour Court, by an order, dated 3rd October, 1958, overruled these preliminary objections and directed that the applications be listed for being tried on merits. The company, thereupon, filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Madras, numbered as 820 and 842 to 847 of 1958 seeking directions of the court restraining the Labour Court from enquiring into these applications on merits on the ground that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the applications from the employees. 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 controversy 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. Aggrieved by this decision, the company preferred Writ Appeal No. 113 of 1959 in the Appellate side of the High Court.
(2.) In the meantime, the Labour Court, took up the applications for decision on merits and, since common questions were involved in all the applications, one of these applications C.P. No. 81 of 1957 was taken up as a test case for disposal by the Labour Court by consent of all parties concerned. The Labour Court, by its order, dated 4th February, 1960, held that the workmen concerned were entitled to retrenchment compensation in accordance with Section 25-FF of the Act, computed the amount due, and passed an order directing the company to pay the amount.
(3.) The company, thereupon, filed Writ Petition No. 254 of 1960 in the High Court of Madras for quashing this order of the Labour Court. Writ Appeal No. 113 of 1959 and this Writ Petition No. 254 of 1960 were heard together by a Division Bench of the High Court which decided them by a common judgment and dismissed the writ appeal as well as the writ petition. The company then sought leave to appeal to this court under Article 133 of the Constitution. The High Court granted a certificate in respect of its judgment in Writ Petition No. 254 of 1960, while rejecting the application for grant of certificate in respect of the same judgment in so far as it had disposed of Writ Appeal No. 113/1959. Civil Appeal No. 2540 of 1966 now before us has been filed by the company in pursuance of that certificate granted by the High Court. The company further obtained from this court special leave to appeal against the same judgment in so far as it governed Writ Appeal No. 113 of 1959 and in pursuance of that special leave granted by this court, Civil Appeal No. 2455 of 1966 has been filed. These appeals have been heard by us together and are now to be disposed of by this common judgment.;