JUDGMENT : Shelat, J. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the order dated August 3, 1967 passed by the Labour Court, Bangalore in an application by Respondent 1 under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. Respondent 1 was an employee of the Bangalore Transport Co. Ltd., from September 8, 1952 and onwards. Under the Bangalore Road Transport Act 8 of 1956 the State of Mysore acquired this company and under Section 8(1) thereof Respondent 1 as also other employees of the company, who were in the employment of the company immediately before the vesting date appointed therein, became, as from that date, the employees of the State and held service therein on the same terms and conditions and with the same rights and privileges as to pension, gratuity and other matters which they would have had under the company if its undertaking had not vested in the Government and we to continue to do so until their employment under the Government was terminated after giving them 3 months' or 3 months' pay in lieu thereof. The said conditions of service did not provide any particular age on the reaching of which the company could superannuate any of its employees. 3. On November 25, 1959, the Deputy General Manager of the Bangalore Transport Service of the State Government served a notice on Respondent 1 and in pursuance thereof passed an order dated March 5, 1960 to the effect that Respondent 1 stood superannuated as from March 6, 1960. On receipt of the said notice and before the expiry of three months period. Respondent 1 made a representation dated December 14, 1959 requesting the Bangalore Transport Service to relieve him from his duties. On March 6, 1960 Respondent 1 was so relieved of his duties. 4. Under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 64 of 1950, the State Government established, with effect from August 1, 1961, the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation. On September 27, 1961 the Govt. issued a notification under powers reserved to it under that Act declaring that the Corporation would operate for the whole of Mysore State with effect from October 1, 1961. On September 27, 1961 the Govt. issued a notification under powers reserved to it under that Act declaring that the Corporation would operate for the whole of Mysore State with effect from October 1, 1961. By another notification dated September 30, 1961 issued under Section 34(1) of that Act the Government directed that the employees of the Bangalore Transport Service Division of the State Government, who opted to serve under he Corporation, should be employed by the Corporation subject to certain regulations and conditions. By another notification of the same date, also issued under Section 34 of Act 64 of 1950, the Government declared that the said Corporation should take over management of the Bangalore. Transport Service Division with effect from 1st October, 1961 together with all its properties and assets, rights and liabilities. Clause 7 of the said notification directed that the employees of the said Bangalore Transport Service, who had opted to serve under the Corporation in response to notices issued to them by the Government, should be employed by the Corporation subject to such regulations as may be made under Section 45(II)(c) of Act 64 of 1950 and subject to such assurances as may have been given to them by the Government in their notice dated June 23, 1961. It appears that as Respondent 1 was considered to have been superannuated while he was in the employment of the Bangalore Transport Service with effect from March 6, 1960, no notice giving him the option to serve he Corporation was served upon him and consequently no such option was exercised by him as required by Clause 7 of the said notification so as to be considered as the employee of the Corporation. On the same day, another notification bearing No. HD 29(2) TRC 61 was issued giving certain directions to the Corporation in regard to recruitment, conditions of service and wages to be paid to the employees of the Bangalore Transport Service who had opted to serve under the Corporation. The notification provided that such employees were to enjoy continuity of service and the transfer of their service was not to be held as an interruption in their service and the terms and conditions of service applicable to them were to be not less favourable in any way than those applicable to them immediately before such transfer. The notification provided that such employees were to enjoy continuity of service and the transfer of their service was not to be held as an interruption in their service and the terms and conditions of service applicable to them were to be not less favourable in any way than those applicable to them immediately before such transfer. It also provided that no change in the conditions of service of such transferred employees was to be effected to their disadvantage without the prior permission of the Government. 5. On April 2, 1962 Respondent 1 made a representation to the Corporation and with reference to that representation the Deputy General Manager of the Corporation, in pursuance of an order dated April 19, 1962 passed by the General Manager, issued the following order : "With reference to his representation dated 2.4.62, Shri A. Krishna Rao, Ex. Junior Assistant, Superannuated, is sanctioned 3 months' salary in lieu of notice in terms of the order from the General Manager ..... dated 19.4.62." Respondent 1 thereupon received and accepted 3 months' salary sanctioned by the said order. On March 4, 1965, he filed an application before the Labour Court making certain money claims against the appellant-Corporation, but withdrew the same at a later stage. On January 19, 1967 he filed the instant application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming that the State Government had no authority to superannuate him, that the order of superannuation dated March 5, 1960 was without jurisdiction and therefore, void, that the order dated April 19, 1962 auctioning 3 months' wages to him was also void, that there was no effective termination of his service, that therefore, he continued to be in service all throughout and claimed wages from March 6, 1960 till the date of his application. Alternatively, he claimed wages from March 6, 1990 to April 19, 1962. 6. Alternatively, he claimed wages from March 6, 1990 to April 19, 1962. 6. The appellant-Corporation resisted the claim stating that Respondent 1 was not a workman within Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act in relation to the Corporation for the purposes of Section 33-C(2), that there was no privity of contract between him and the Corporation, his services having been ended long before the Corporation came into being, that the Bangalore Transport Service, whose employee he was, had power under Section 8 of the Bangalore Transport Service Act, 1956 to terminate his service and in pursuance thereof had in fact terminated it, and that in any event he, having accepted 3 months' salary in lieu of the 3 months notice, had accepted such termination. 7. The Labour Court held that in view of the Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Rajagopalan, (1964)3 SCR 140 . It had no jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of the termination of the service of Respondent 1 by the order dated April 19, 1962. Nevertheless, it held that in view of certain decisions of the High Court of Mysore the State Government had no right to superannuate Respondent 1 under Section 8 of the Bangalore Road Transport Service Act, that therefore, the order dated March 5, 1960 was void and should be ignored and Respondent 1 must be deemed to have contained in service. It further held that the order of April 19, 1962 showed that the Corporation itself considered Respondent 1 to be in service then, and that the Corporation could not, under Section 8(1) of the Bangalore Road Transport Service Act, 1956, terminate the service of Respondent 1 as that power was exercisable by the State Government only. But it held at the same time that though the order of April 19, 1962 was not in accordance with law it did in fact terminate the service of Respondent 1 by paying him 3 months' wages in lieu in notice. Consequently, Respondent 1 could claim and was entitled to be treated as having continued in service from March 6, 1960 to April 19, 1962, and on this footing awarded him Rs. 3430.36 as wages and allowances due to him for the aforesaid period. 8. It will seen at once that in arriving at this conclusion the Labour Court applied a somewhat inconsistent reasoning. 3430.36 as wages and allowances due to him for the aforesaid period. 8. It will seen at once that in arriving at this conclusion the Labour Court applied a somewhat inconsistent reasoning. Since it found that it had no jurisdiction, in view of Rajagopalan's case, (1964)3 SCR 140 , to go into the question of the validity or otherwise of the order of April 19, 1962, it should also have held on the same reasoning that it had no jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of the order of March 5, 1960. Yet, the Labour Court held that order to be void and proceeded to hold further that Respondent 1 must consequently be deemed to have continued in service of the Bangalore Road Transport Service even though he had by his letter dated December 14, 1959 requested to be relieved from his duties at an early date. Assuming that the Government had no power to superannuate Respondent 1 though it had the power to terminate his service by giving him a 3 months' notice or the wages in lieu thereof, the service of Respondent 1 in point of fact was terminated when he was relieved of his post on March 6, 1960. 9. On these facts counsel for the appellant-Corporation challenged the correctness of the order of the labour Court on three grounds : (1) that Respondent 1 was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) in relation to an application under Section 33-C(2) though he might be one for the purposes of an industrial dispute in a reference under Section 10(1) of the Act, (2) that the Labour Court, in a proceeding under Section 33-C(2) had no jurisdiction to consider the validity or otherwise of the order of superannuation dated March 6, 1960 and to quash that order on the ground that it was incompetent, which in effect it did, and (3) that in any event Respondent 1 had no right to claim any relief from the Corporation as he was not its employee during the period for which the claim was made and that if at all he could claim any relief that could only be against the said Bangalore Road Transport Service of the Mysore Government. In the view we take on counsel's third contention, which we shall immediately set out we think it will not be necessary for us to go into the first and second contentions. 10. As already stated, the Bangalore Road Transport Service gave notice to Respondent 1 to superannuate him and passed the order to that effect on March 6, 1960, though Respondent 1 has asked to be relieved of his duties even before the expiry of the 3 months' i.e. even before March 6, 1960. Assuming that order was incompetent and that therefore, Respondent 1 continued to be in service, he would continue to be in service of the State Government and that too only till the appellant Corporation was set up on October 1, 1961 under Sections 3 and 34 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. On the appellant-Corporation being so set up and the undertaking run so far by the Bangalore Road Transport Service of the State Government having been transferred under and by virtue of Act 64 of 1950, the Bangalore Road Transport Service of which Respondent 1 could be deemed to be the employee immediately before the said transfer, came to an end. With that the employment of Respondent 1 also would ordinarily without anything more come to an end and if he had any right or claim in relation to such termination. Such right or claim would be, in the absence of the Corporation having taken over such liability, against the State Government. 11. Therefore, the question would be whether Respondent 1 could be deemed to have been taken over as an employee of the Corporation on its being established on October 1, 1961 under Act 64 of 1950. As aforesaid, the State Government by the notification dated July 25, 1961 established the appellant-Corporation under powers reserved to it under Section 3 of that Act for the whole of the State of Mysore except the area comprised within the city limits of Bangalore and 10 miles beyond those limits. The area so exempted was included later on by the notification of September 28, 1961 and thus the appellant-Corporation came into being for the whole of the State as from October 1, 1961 as notified in those notifications. The area so exempted was included later on by the notification of September 28, 1961 and thus the appellant-Corporation came into being for the whole of the State as from October 1, 1961 as notified in those notifications. But the establishment of the Corporation did not mean, as we shall point out, that the services of the employees of the Road Transport Service of the Mysore Government were automatically transferred to the Corporation, or that those employees automatically became the employees of the Corporation as from October 1, 1961. Under powers reserved to it under Section 34 of Act 64 of 1950, the Government by a notification dated August 1, 1961 gave directions in regard the recruitment and conditions of service and wages to be paid to its employees. That notification directed the Corporation to employ such of the employees of its Roads Transport Service who exercised option given to them to serve the Corporation and further directed that those who so opted were to be given the same terms and conditions of service which were applicable to them when they were in Government service and who were to enjoy continuity of service, the transfer of their service to the Corporation not being as an interruption in their service. Under a similar notification issued on September 30, 1961 the Corporation took over the management, properties, assets, rights and liabilities of the Bangalore Transport Service of the Mysore Government Clause 7 of that notification dealt with the transfer of service of the employees in that department to the Corporation and provided that those employees, who opted for the service of the Corporation taken over and were to be deemed to be the employees of the Corporation with effect from October 1, 1961 on the same terms and conditions as were so far applicable to them. 12. It is quite clear that the employees of the Bangalore Road Transport Service of the Government did not either under a statutory provision as in Jestamani Gulabrai Dholakia v. The Scindia Steam Navigation Co., (1961)2 SCR 811 , or automatically become the employees of the Corporation. The Corporation was directed to take over only those of the employees who opted for its service and to give to them the same terms and conditions as were enjoyed by them while in the service of the Mysore Government. The Corporation was directed to take over only those of the employees who opted for its service and to give to them the same terms and conditions as were enjoyed by them while in the service of the Mysore Government. Thus, the condition precedent of an employee of the Road Transport Service of the Government of Mysore being transferred and regarded as the employee of the Corporation as from October 1, 1961 was the giving of the option to him and his exercise thereof. 13. There is no dispute that Respondent 1 was not given the notice of option, presumably because, rightly or wrongly, he was not regarded as having been in the service of the Government's Road Transport Service immediately before the Corporation came into being. It cannot also be disputed that he never asked for a notice of option on the ground that he continued to be in that service. That he did not in fact exercise the option is an accepted fact. That being so it cannot be said that under the said notification the Corporation was required to have him as its employee or that his service was transferred to the Corporation thereunder, the condition precedent to such employment or transfer not having been complied with. 14. Mr. Datar, on his behalf, contended that by paying Respondent 1 three months' wages under the order dated April 19, 1962 the Corporation must be deemed to have recognised him as the employee whose service was transferred to it under the said notification. But such a contention runs counter to the facts of this case. It would appear that the Corporation agreed to pay and actually paid that amount on the footing that the State Government had no power as it did on March 6, 1960, to superannuate Respondent 1, that it could have terminated his service by giving 3 months' notice or by paying wages in lieu thereof, that the order of March 6, 1960 should, therefore, be treated as one of termination, and that therefore, Respondent 1 should be paid 3 months' wages as no notice of 3 months' for termination of his service could be said to have been given to him. This was done as a matter of grace in answer to the representation which Respondent 1 had made to it. It appears that Respondent 1 himself also took that order in this light. This was done as a matter of grace in answer to the representation which Respondent 1 had made to it. It appears that Respondent 1 himself also took that order in this light. That is clear from the fact that he accepted the 3 months' wages paid by the Corporation and did not take any legal proceedings till 1967 claiming to be its employee. In our view, it would be utterly wrong to read that order as meaning acceptance by the Corporation that Respondent 1 had become or was its employee. As pointed out earlier, he could not be regarded as an employee transferred from the Government Road Transport Service to the Corporation unless he was given and he exercised the option necessary under the said notification. 15. In our view, the Labour Court could not, on the position stated above, treat him as the Corporation's employee and on that footing grant him the relief which it did. Once it is found that he did not become the Corporation's employee, the Corporation could not be held liable to pay him the wages for the period from March 6, 1960 to April 19, 1962. It will be noticed that Respondent 1 did not claim and the Labour Court did not grant him the relief against the Corporation on the footing that the Corporation, as the successor of the Road Transport Service of the Government had taken over all the liabilities of that department, and that therefore, it was as such successor liable to satisfy any such liability. Such a contention would have necessarily raised the question whether the Government had become liable to pay the wages of Respondent 1 for the period from March 6, 1960 to October 1, 1961 when the Corporation took over the Transport undertaking of the Government and secondly, whether under the aforesaid notification, the Corporation was liable as the successor of the Government to satisfy such liability of the Government. No such contention was raised before the Labour Court either in the pleadings of Respondent 1 or at any stage of the hearing, and the Labour Court consequently could not have founded the relief it gave on that footing. 16. In this view, the appellant-Corporation must succeed. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order of the Labour Court impugned in this appeal. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.