U.P ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD. versus R. K. SHUKLA AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [1970] 1 S.C.R. 507 · Decided: 30-04-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
U.P. ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD. 
v. 
R. K. SHUKLA AND ANR. ETC. 
April 30, 1969 
(J. C. SHAH AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] 
Industrial Dispute-Electricity undertaking taken once by U .. P. State 
Electricity Board under s. 6 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910-Retrenchment 
compensation claimed by workmen-Dispute whether to be decided under 
Industrial Di•pute• Act, 1947 (Central) or under U.P. Industrial Disputes 
Act, 1947-,\'ec. 6-H(2) of U.P. Act-Jurisdiction of Labour Court under-
Whether can decide ·question as to retrenchment con1pensation being pay-
able-Effect of s, 6-0-Board whether liable to pay the campensation-
Ef]ect of ss. 6 and 7 of Indian Electricity Act and Cl. V of Sixth Schedule. 
In exercise of the power under s. 6 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 
the undertakings of the appellant company at Allahabad and Lucknow 
were takeh over by the State Electricity Board, U.P. with effect from 
September 17, 1964. The wor)anen of the company were taken into the 
employment of the Board without any break in continuity of employment. 
Certain workmen of the Allahabad undertaking filed before the Labour 
Conrt applications under s. 6-H(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act 
1947, for payment of ntrenchment compensation and salary in lieu of 
notice. 
A group of workmen ·from the Lucknow undertaking also sub-
mitted applications underi. s. 6-H(2) with the same prayers; in addition they 
claimed compensation fur accumulated earned leave not enjoyed by them 
till September 16,. 1964, 
The Labour Court allowed the. applications. 
The Company appealed to this Court by special leave. According to the 
company there was no retrenchment of the workmep because, they had 
voluntarily left the servic'e of the company to join the: service of the Board 
with· no break in their ~rvice. The questions that fell for consideration 
were : (i) Whether the .matter was to be decided under the provisions of 
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or those of the U.P. Industrial Disputes 
Act, 1947: (ii) Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction under s. 6-H(2) 
of the U.P. Act to decide the applications or because of there being dis-
pute as to the liability to pay retrenchment compensation the matter was 
in view of item 10 of the second schedule to the U.P. Act within the ex-
clusive jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal; (iii) Whether s. 6-0 of the 
U.P. Act also necessita~d that the question of liability to pay retrenchment 
compensation be first determined; (iv) Whether in view of ss. 6 & 7 of 
the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and ss. 57 & 57A of the Indian Electricity 
(Supply) Act, 1948 read with Cl. V of the sixth schedule thereto. the 
liability to pay retrenchment compensation was that of the Board and not 
that of the company; (v) Whether the claim. of the Lucknow workmen 
for compensation for earned I~ave not enjoyed by them was allowable·. 
Held : (i) Unde'r the Seventh Schedule to the constitution legisla· 
tion in respect _of 'Trade Union Industrial and Labour Disputes' fallSt within 
Entry 22 of the Conclll'ftlnl List and both the State and the Union are 
competent to legislate in respect of that field of legislation. Aci; I of 1957 
added to the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, s. 6-R(2) which enacts 
that the rights and li-'b~lities of employers and workmen relating to lay-off 
and retrenchment shalt be dete'rmined in accordance with the provisions of 
~08 
SUPREME COURT lll!PORTS 
[1970] 1 S.C.R. 
ss. 6-J to 6-0. Act 1 of 1957 received the assent of the President and 
by virtue of Art, 254(2) of the Constitution a, 6-R(2) of the U.P. Act 
prevails notwithstanding any prior law made by the Parliament, 
The 
rishta and obligations of the parties had therefore to be decided under the 
U.P. Act includina s. 6-R(2), [511 H-512 DJ 
Rohtak & Hisrar Districts Electric S11pply Company v. Stal< of U.P., 
(1966] II L.L.J. 330, distinguished. 
(ii) Section 6-H(l) and (2) of the U.P. Act were substantially the 
same as sub-'5, (I) and (2) of s. 33-C of the Central Act and cuet 
decided by this Court under the latter provisions were applicable in the 
ir.terpretation of the former. According to the rule laid down ins. 6-H(2) 
th.! Labour Coun was competent to determine what each workman was 
entitled to receive from the employer by way of retrenchment compensa-
tion payable in terms of money and the denial of liability of the company 
did not affect the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. 
Where, however, 
as in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.