Somnath Ayyar, J.
1. In these two petitions the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation is the petitioner. Respondent 2 in Writ Petition No. 1264 is an erstwhile employee of the Corporation. There are four persons in Writ Petition No. 1265 of 1964 who are the legal representatives of a deceased worker Subba Rao.
2. Respondent 2 in the one case, and the legal representatives in the other, presented application to the labour court for retrenchment compensation under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Respondent 2 in Writ Petition No. 1264 of 1964 was awarded retrenchment compensation of Rs. 2,460. The legal representatives of Subba Rao were awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,620 after deducting what had already been paid. The Corporation calls in question these orders made by the labour court.
3. It is undisputed that the two workers were employees of a company known as the Bangalore Transport Company whose undertaking was taken over by Government under the Bangalore Road Transport Service Act (Mysore Act 8 of 1956) which came into force on September 29, 1956. Thereafter, they continued to be the employees of Government in the Mysore Government Road Transport Department, until 1 August 1961, when they became employees of the Mysore Road Transport Corporation which has been established.
4. Under S. 8(1) of the Bangalore Road Transport Service Act, the services of the two employees were terminated on payment of three months' pay in lieu of the notice permitted by that sub-section. The services of respondent 2 in Writ Petition No. 1264 of 1964 were terminated on July 3, 1962, and the services of Subba Rao in Writ Petition No. 1265 of 1964 were terminated on June 16, 1962. The case before the labour court was that these terminations amounted to retrenchment and so compensation was claimed. The labour court accepted the contention that there was retrenchment and directed payment of retrenchment compensation. The view taken by the labour court was that termination under S. 8(1) of the Bangalore Road Transport Service Act was possible only for Government and not for the Corporation.
5. Sri Satyanarayan contends that it was equally possible for the Corporation to terminate the services of the employees under S. 8(1).
6. That sub-section provided for the absorption of the employees of the Bangalore Transport Company Department on the acquisition of the undertaking of the company. It further provided that the employees so absorbed shall hold office until their employment 'under Government' was terminated by three months' notice or on payment of three months' pay.
7. The clear meaning of this sub-section is that an employee of the company became transformed into an employee of Government and became entitled to hold office under Government unless his employment was terminated by a notice or on payment of three months' pay to which the sub-section refers.
8. It was urged by Sri Satyanarayan that, under the notification issued by Government on September 30, 1961, under S. 34(1) of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, under which the Corporation was established, the terms and conditions of service applicable to employees under Government were preserved and that, in consequence, it became possible for the Corporation to exercise power under S. 8(1) of the Bangalore Road Transport Service Act for termination.
9. But it is obvious that the terms and conditions of service so preserved do not create in the Corporation right to make a termination under S. 8(1) for the obvious reason that the employment that could be terminated under that sub-section is the employment 'under Government' and not the employment under the Corporation. Section 8(1), which is a statutory provision, provides for termination of employment 'under Government' The employment of the two workers with whom we are concerned stood terminated on those employees opting as they did on August 1, 1961. On and after that date, they became employees of the Corporation and were no longer employees under Government. So the termination, which was possible under S. 8(1) when they were still employees under Government, was no longer possible under the Corporation.
10. Further, the power created by S. 8(1) resided in Government and it did not vest in the Corporation after its establishment.
11. Sri Satyanarayan contends that one of the workmen attained the age of superannuation a few days after his services were terminated and that the other had attained that age even earlier. But that was not the ground on which the employment was terminated, and so, has no relevance.
12. We dismiss these writ petitions with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100 in each case.