Judgment

SHAH, J.:- These three groups of appeals arise out of orders made by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (II), U. P., 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.

(2) The U. P. Electricity Supply Company Ltd. - hereinafter called the Company - held the licences issued in 1914 by the Government of U. P. for generating and distributing electricity within the towns of Allahabad and Lucknow. The periods of the licences expired in 1964. Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 12 (i) in each of the said licences and in exercise of the power under Section 6 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the State Electricity Board, U. P. - hereinafter referred to as "the Board" - took over the undertaking of the Company at Allahabad and Lucknow from the mid-night 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.

3. On December 22, 1964, 443 workmen employed in the Allahabad undertaking filed before the Labour Court, applications under Section 6-H (2) 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 the employment of the board with effect from September 17, 1964 "in the posts and positions which they previously held", but without giving credit for their past services with the Company. The workmen contended that they were entitled to retrenchment compensation and salary in lieu of notice, and prayed for computation of those benefits in terms of money and for directions to the Company to pay them the amount so computed.

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

5. In the application filed by the workmen of the Allahabad undertaking, the Labour Court awarded to each workman retrenchment compensation at the rates specified in the order and also 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 undertaking, and costs. The Company has appealed to this Court against the orders with special leave.

6. The orders for payment of retrenchment compensation are resisted by the Company on two grounds-

(i) that the Labour Court was incompetent to entertain 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 admitted to the service of the Board without break in continuity, and on terms not less favourable than the terms enjoyed by them with the Company, the Company was under no liability to pay retrenchment compensation.

7. Some argument 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, 1947, apply. The question is academic, because on the points in controversy between the parties, the statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the U. P. I