Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) THIS group of petitions arise out of proceedings pending before the Labour Court Allahabad, in respect of a claim of retrenchment compensation and bonus between the U.P. Electric Supply Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner company) and many of its workmen. They are directed against an order passed on 11th September, 1965, by the Labour Court deciding some preliminary legal objections raised by the Company and the order dated 8-2-1966 whereby some other issues were decided.
(2.) THE petitioner company carried on at Allahabad the business of generation and distribution of electricity under a licence granted in 1914. In view of the provisions in the licence, the State Electricity Board, Uttar Pradesh took over the Company's undertaking and continued the work of generation and distribution of electricity with effect from 17th September, 1964. Since then the Company has ceased to have any business at Allahabad. Most of the petitioner company's officers and workmen joined the employment offered to them by the U. P. Electricity Board at Allahabad. They filed petitions before the Labour Court at Allahabad under Section 6-H (2) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act claiming retrenchment compensation. Some of the officers claimed bonus for past years as also leave benefits. The petitioner company contested the claim. It raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of the petitions and to the competence of the Labour Court to entertain them. It also contested the claim on the merits. The following objections were treated as preliminary objections:-- (1) Whether the workmen's application was maintainable under Section 6-H (2) or should it have been filed before the State Government under Section 6-H (1)? (2) That retrenchment compensation was claimable under the Uttar Pradesh Act and not under the Central Industrial Disputes Act. (3) That the transaction of taking over by the State Electricity Board was not a transfer but a closure, and Section 25-FF of the Central Industrial Disputes Act was not applicable. The Tribunal decided the questions by its order dated September 11, 1965. It held that the petition was maintainable under Section 6-H (2). It answered the second question also in favour of the workmen, and held that in the view of Section 25-J (2) of the Central Act, Section 6-R of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act will not apply and the provisions of Chapter V-A of the Central Act will govern these cases. In respect of the third question, the Labour Court held that this was a case of transfer and not closure of business and as such the workmen were entitled to the benefit or retrenchment compensation under Section 25-FF of the Central Act. All these three findings are questioned in the present petitions.
(3.) THE officers and the workmen of the Company are claiming retrenchment compensation. The Officers are also claiming bonus (the claim for leave benefits was given up). The petitioner company is disputing the right of the officers and the workmen to receive both these kinds of claims. Its case is that the officers and the workmen voluntarily abandoned their services with the Company and joined the services offered by the State Electricity Board; and as such the Company had not terminated their services and was not liable to pay retrenchment compensation. In respect of bonus, the company's defence was that the officers had entered into service agreements with the Company renouncing any claim to bonus and on that ground they were not entitled to receive any bonus. It had also pleaded that the officers do not answer the definition of workmen as given in the Industrial Disputes Act and so they were not entitled to any relief. There was no dispute as to the rate of pay or the length of service. It is clear that the dispute between the parties does not relate to mere arithmetical verification of the retrenchment compensation or bonus, but to the entitlement or the right to receive itself. On these facts the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 2726 of 1961 dated 22-11-1966 (All) is applicable. The Division Bench had held that such a claim was maintainable under Sub-section (2) of Section 6-H.;