SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1968 Supreme(SC) 387

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAVA AND C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.
Workmen of the Gujarat Electricity Board, Baroda, Appellants
Versus
Gujarat Electricity Board, Baroda, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 2431 of 1966, D/- 19-12-1968.
Advocates appeared
M/s. A. S. R. Chari and M. K. Ramamurthi, Senior Advocates (Mrs. Shyamla Pappu, M/s. Vineet Kumar P. S. Khera and Miss Bindra Thakur, Advocates with them), for Appellants; Mr. I. N. Shroff, Advocate, for Respondent.

Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S. H. Thakur.
For the Respondent: Mr. I. M. Nehvi.

Headnote:

Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 - Section 18 - General Standing Order 56 - Contributory Provident Fund or Employees Provident Fund Scheme – Appeal against Award of Industrial Tribunal - Gratuity - Supply of electricity in State of Saurashtra, prior to year 1954, was being carried out departmentally by Government of Saurashtra and workmen employed in power houses were consequently Government servants - Electricity Board was constituted to run power houses and employees of Electricity Department of Government were sent to work with Saurashtra Electricity Board on deputation - Whether Board s existing scheme of payment of dearness allowance was reasonable and took into account various factors for arriving at its finding that it could not be held that terms offered by Board were unreasonable - Held, It is clear that if these various factors are taken into account, neither Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd., nor Viramgam Electric Supply Co., can be held to be a concern comparable with Board - Court do not think that there is any justification for remanding case for such a purpose at this stage - Tribunal was quite right in rejecting demands made by Sangh, particularly in light of further fact relied upon by Tribunal that all employees of Board in Gujarat Region as well as a large majority of over 2500 employees even in Saurashtra Region had accepted existing rates based on settlements and only 466 employees had come forward with this demand without establishing that demand was restricted to bringing up their wages to level of minimum wages - Appeal dismissed.

Judgment

BHARGAVA, J. :- This appeal, by special leave, is directed against an Award of the Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat in an industrial dispute referred to it by the Government of Gujarat at the instance of the appellants who are 466 workmen of the Gujarat Electricity Board, Baroda (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") represented by the Saurashtra Vidyut Kamdar Sangh (hereinafter referred to as "the Sangh"). The dispute referred to related to two matters. One was the demand made in respect of rates of dearness allowance to be paid to the workmen. The second demand was that those of the workmen, to whom Contributory Provident Fund or Employees Provident Fund Scheme was applicable should be granted gratuity equal to 15 days wages for every year of service in addition to the provident fund benefits, while those workmen, who were entitled to pension according to the pensionary scheme in force, should have their pension calculated after adding 50 per cent of the dearness allowance to the basic pay.

2. The facts needed to explain the second demand may first be stated. The supply of electricity in the State of Saurashtra, prior to the year 1954, was being carried out departmentally by the Government of Saurashtra and the workmen employed in the power houses were consequently Government servants. On 1st July, 1954, a Saurashtra Electricity Board was constituted to run the power houses and the employees of the Electricity Department of the Government were sent to work with the Saurashtra Electricity Board on deputation. On 1st November, 1956, Saurashtra became a part of the Bombay State, whereafter the Saurashtra Electricity Board was dissolved with effect from 1st April 1957 and its assets, liabilities, and employees were taken over by the Bombay State Electricity Board. The employees, who were originally in the service of the Saurashtra State Government were entitled to the pensionary scheme of the Sauarashtra Government, while the Bombay State Electricity Board had a Provident Fund Scheme. The Saurashtra State Government servants, on being taken over by the Bombay State Electricity Board, were given the option of either continuing in their pensionary scheme, or of joining the Provident Fund Scheme of the Bombay State Electricity Board in which case the gratuity already accrued to them and the equivalent of pensionary benefits were credited to their accounts. Some of the employees opted for the Provident Fund Scheme, while others continued under the pensionary scheme. Thereafter, on 1st May, 1960, the State of Bombay was bifurcated and a separate State of Gujarat was constituted; and, with effect from the same date, the Board came into existence. The Board took over all the Electricity, power-houses and electricity schemes in the State of Gujarat from the Bombay State Electricity Board including the workmen who are the appellants in this appeal. The assets and liabilities of the Bombay State Electricity Board were divided between the Board, and the Maharashtra Electricity Board which was constituted for the State of Maharashtra which came into existence on bifurcation of the Bombay State. The Board continued both the Pensionary Scheme as well as the Provident Fund Scheme for the employees in the manner they were in force when the employees were working under the Board State Electricity Board. The employees, who were originally servants of the State Government, had ceased to be government servants with effect from 1st April, 1957 and later on 1st May, 1960, became the employees of the Board so that they were no longer entitled to the rights which the State Government might sub-sequently grant in respect of pension under the rules applicable to the government servants. The result was that even improvements granted in the pensionary scheme by the State Government to its employees did not enure to the benefit of the appellants. In these circumstances the Sangh put forward the claim that the pension of employees, who were governed by













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top