Jurisdiction of Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal to determine the due amount of workman.

The questions for determination in all these writ petitions are the same, and, I shall, therefore, deal with them together.

With effect from 1st June, 1957, the Government of Madras took over the undertaking of the South Arcot Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. They did so in exercise of the powers conferred on them by Madras Act (XXIX of 1954). One consequence of this taking over was that by virtue of section 6 of the Act all the properties of the company and all its rights, liabilities and obligations as on the vesting date, subject to certain provisos, vested in the Government. Some time after they took over the undertaking the Government transferred it to the Madras State Electricity Board. The taking over of the undertaking of the Company by the Government had another consequence which was probably not anticipated. Section 25-FF of the Industrial Disputes Act as it stood in 1956, that is to say, before it was amended by Central Act XVIII of 1957, provided that no workman would be entitled to compensation by reason merely of the fact that there had been a change of employers in any case where the ownership or management of the undertaking in which he was employed was transferred, whether by agreement or by operation of law from one employer to another, provided certain conditions referred to later on in the section were satisfied. Central Act XVIII of 1957 recast the section and provides in positive terms that where the ownership or management of an undertaking is transferred, whether by agreement or by operation of law, from one employer to another, every workman who had a continuous service of not less than one year shall be entitled to notice and compensation as if he had been retrenched, unless certain conditions are satisfied. A large number of the employees of the undertaking which the Government took over from the South Arcot Electricity Distribution Company, Limited considered that they were entitled to retrenchment compensation and certain other benefits referred to in section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, and to enforce their claims they filed petitions before the Labour Court, Madras. To these proceedings the South Arcot Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., the State of Madras and the Madras State Electricity Board were made parties.

Before the Labour Court the Company, the Government and the Electricity Board took the preliminary objection that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to enquire into the claims. By an order pronounced on 3rd October, 1958, the Labour Court overruled the objection and posted the petitions for further enquiry. The present writ petitions have been filed to quash this order of the Labour Court.

A substantial portion of the arguments before me turned on the scope, design and purposes of section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, and, it will therefore be convenient if I were to set it out in full.

“ Section 33-C. Recovery of money due from an employer.- (1) Where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of Chapter V-A, the workman may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the appropriate Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the appropriate Government is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.

(2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, the amount at which such benefit should be computed may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be determined by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government, and the amount so determined may be recovered as provided for in sub-section (1).

(3) For the purposes of computing the money value of a benefit, the Labour Court may, if it so thinks fit,