Judgment

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 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 appellant s 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 them 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 w