ELURU ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD Vs. TULURI SATYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Eluru Electric Supply Corporation, Ltd., Eluru, represented by its Managing Agents, Messrs. Chandrie & Co., (P.) Ltd., by its accredited representative, Sri S. Venkatraman is the appellant in all these appeals while the respondents in the appeals were the employees, under the said Corporation.

(2.) The appellant Corporation's undertaking, was taken over by the Andhra Pradesh Government on 10th December, 1960, under the provisions of the Andhra Electricity Supply Undertakings Acquisition Act (XV of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as the Andhra Act). Thereupon, the State Government deposited compensation to the tune of over Rs. 10 lakhs on basis (A) contemplated by the said Act to be paid to the Corporation in view of the said acquisition. The respondents who were provisionally absorbed into the service of the State Government filed applications for payment to them, out of the aforesaid sum deposited, compensation in lieu of one month's notice under section 25-F and retrenchment compensation under section 25-FF of the Industrial Disputes Act (XIV of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act). One set of applications, i.e., O.P. Nos. 66 to 78, 80 to 82 and 86 of 1961, out of which C.M.A. Nos. 228 to 244 of 1962 arise, were disposed of on 18th December, 1961, by a common judgment by the District Judge, West Godavari, Sri M. Ramamurti who was appointed as a Special Officer, under the provisions of the Andhra Act, granting compensation as claimed by the employees while the second batch of O.P. Nos. 64 to 73 and 77 of 1962, out of which C.M.A. Nos. 370 to 380 of 1963 arise, were disposed of by the District Judge, West Godavari Sri Nandagiri Venkatarao, by his order dated 8th August, 1963, granting compensation to the employees as prayed for. As common questions ate involved in the two batches of appeals, I propose to dispose of them by a common judgment. Sri Kuppuswami, the learned Counsel for the appellant in all the appeals, raised the following five points: (1) The Special Officer has no jurisdiction to determine the retrenchment compensation claimed under section 25-FF of the Central Act. (2) The employees respondents are estopped from claiming the retrenchment compensation in view of certain documents executed by them in favour of the Corporation. (3) The employees are not entitled to the retrenchment compensation because the provisos to section 25-FF of the Central Act are attracted. (4) The claim of the employees is only against the Government consequent on the acquisition, and that the Corporation ceased to be liable for any such claim. (5) The award of interest on the compensation amount from the date of the application till the date of payment is not warranted by any provisions of law.

(3.) On this question of jurisdiction, both the Special Officers who decided the petitions came to the conclusion that they have got jurisdiction to determine the claims of the employees for retrenchment compensation. Sri N. Ramamohan Rao, the learned Counsel for the respondents argued that the provisions of of section 11 (10) of the Andhra Act empowering the Special Officer to inquire into the claims of the employees is wide enough to confer jurisdiction on the Special Officer for determining the claim in question and that the Special Officer can incidentally consider whether the employee satisfies the requirements of the provisions of the Central Act in order to entitle him to the said amount. The relevant provisions of the two Acts are as follows : Section 11 (9) of the Andhra Act reads as follows :