LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

R. C. SHARMA versus THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BHOPAL & ORS.

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 87 · Decided: 25-04-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
87 
R. C. SHARMA 
v. 
THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA 
PRADESH, BHOPAL & ORS. 
April 25, 1973 
ll 
(A. N. GROVER, A. K. MUKHERJEA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] 
c 
0 
E 
F 
G 
H 
lnduslrial Dispute-Sen·ices of en1ployees of State U11dcrtakings transferred 
to ~orporolion-Condirions of transfer, interpretation of-Whether employees 
emztled lo get Dearness Allowance at same rate and on same basis as paid by 
State Gover11me11t to its employees. 
Three industrial undertakings owned and managed by the Madhya Pradesh 
Government were transferred to the Madhya Pradesh State Industries Corpora.-
lion with effect from April I, 1963. By letter dated February 16, 1963 the State 
Government offered to transfer the services of the employees of the three under .. 
takings to the Corporation on two conditions. The first one was that their exist-
ing pay and scale and other conditions of service and benefits to which they 
were entitled would not be affected by the transfer. 
The second was that the 
transfer of services would not be treated as an interruption in service. In other 
words, .it was said, the employees would be entitled to leave and other benefits 
on the same basis as if their services under the State Corporation were a continua ... 
tion of their total uninter_rupted services under the said undertakings. This offer 
was accepted by the employees. 
However, relying on the second condition men .. 
tioned in the aforesaid letter the employees raised an industrial dispute in 1968, 
claiming from the Corporation, dearness allowance on the same scale and on 
the same basis as it was subsequently being paid by the State Government to its 
employees. The Labour Court rejected the contention. The present appellant 
as Secretary of the employees Union filed a writ petition under Article 226 of 
the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the petition. By certificat~ appeal 
was filed in this Court. 
Dismissin2 the appeal. 
HELD : Ordinarily the change of employers would have the effect of inter-
rupting service. 
Condition 2 was, therefore. meant to overcome that situation. 
Th;it condition dealt solely with effect of the transfer of service on the benefits 
to which an employee would be entitled if there was no interruption in his ser ... 
vice. The second sentence therein, namely 'in other words' etc. was merely ex .. 
planatory of the first sentence that the transfer of service will not be treated as 
an interru!)tion in his service. The second sentence was not intended and could 
not be read as meaning that whatever benefits an employee of the State Gov~ 
ernment were to get in future the employees of the Corporation would automa~ 
tically become entitled to· them. If condition No. 2 was to be read as securing 
to a transferred employee benefits which the Government might in future confer 
upon its employees that would contradict condition No. 1 which secured only 
such benefits to which a transferred employee was entitled at the time of transfer. 
[89F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1907 of 1970 
Appeal by certificate from the order dated October 30, 1969, of the 
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) in Civil Misc. Petition 
No. 16 .of 1968. 
· 
C. K. Daphtary, P. C. Bhartari and 0. C. Mathur, for the appellant. 
Ram Panjwani and I. N. Shroff, for respondent No. 1. 
M. C. Setalvad and Rameshwar Nath, for respondent No. 2. 
88 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ J 974] 1 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
GROVER, J. 
This is an appeal by certificate from an order of the 
Madhya Pradesh High Court. 
The facts may be shortly stated. Prior 
to April 1, 1963, three undertakings namely, Gwalior Engineering 
Works, (2) Gwalior Potteries, and (3) Gwalior Leather Factory and 
Gwalior Tannery, Morar, were owned and managed by the Madhaya 
Pradesh State. The employees in these undertakings were in the ser-
vice of the Madhya Pradesn State Government. These undertakings 
were transferred to the Madhya Pradesh Industries Corporation Ltd., 
hereinafter called the "Corporation". The employees of these under-
takings thus ceased to be in the service of the State Government and 
became employees of the Corporation. On February 16, 
1963 the 
Government of Madhya Pradesh had made an offer to the employees 
of the three undertakings which was as follgws :-
"WHEREAS tne State Government have decided to 
transfer the management of the (1) Gwalior Potteries, (2) 
Gwalior Engineering Works, (3) Gwalior

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.