U. P. State Electricity Board vs Hari Shankar Jain

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1978 Supreme(SC) 226

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.R. KRISHNA IYER, D.A. DESAI AND O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.
The U. P. State Electricity Board and another, Appellants
Versus
Hari Shanker Jain and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 2199 of 1977, D/- 28-8-1978.
Advocates appeared
Mr. G. B. Pai, Sr. Advocate (Mr. O. P. Rana, Advocate with him), for Appellants; M/s. R. K. Garg, V. J. Francis, Madan Mohan, K. P. Aggarwal and Mrs. Manju Gupta, Advocate, for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2; Mr. Manoj Swarup and Miss Lalita Kohli, Advocates, for the Intervener.

Advocates:
G.B.PAI, K.P.AGRAWAL, LALITA KOHLI, MADAN MOHAN DAS, MANJU GUPTA, MANOJ SVARUP, O.P.RANA, R.K.GARG, V.J.Francis

Headnote:DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES FUNDAMENTAL IN GOVERNANCE OF COUNTRY—ARTICLE IS PROMPTED BY DEEP CONCERN FOR WELFARE Of WORKERS AND PROVIDES FOR SECURING JUST AND HUMAN CONDITION OF WORK IN ARTICLES 42 AND 43
-held, inspite of mandate in Article 37 that directive principles of State policies are not enforceable by any court the principles are nevertheless fundamental in the goverance of the country" and "it shall be the duty of the State to apply thse principles in making laws".

Judgement Key Points

Based on the legal document provided, here are the key points regarding the case U. P. State Electricity Board vs. Hari Shanker Jain:

Case Subject: The case concerns the age of retirement for workmen employed by the U. P. State Electricity Board and raises general questions regarding workmen employed by statutory bodies and corporations. (!)
Background: Two workmen were originally employed by Messrs. Seth Ram Gopal and Partners, where certified Standing Orders did not prescribe an age of superannuation. When the U. P. State Electricity Board purchased the undertaking in 1964, it did not make new Standing Orders as required by the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. (!)
The Regulation: On May 28, 1970, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh notified a regulation made by the Board under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, setting the compulsory retirement age at 58 years (or 60 for inferior servants). (!) (!) (!)
Legal Challenge: The workmen challenged the regulation in the Allahabad High Court, arguing that the Board was not competent to make such a regulation because the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, was a special Act that should prevail. (!)
High Court Decision: The Full Bench of the High Court held that the Standing Orders Act applies to the Board but that regulations framed under Section 79(c) of the Electricity Act do not cease to be operative. It further held that Section 13-B of the Standing Orders Act applies only to government establishments. Consequently, the Division Bench quashed the notification. (!) (!) (!)
Constitutional Context: The Supreme Court noted that while Directive Principles of State Policy (like Articles 42 and 43) are not enforceable by courts, they are fundamental in governance and guide the interpretation of statutes concerning worker welfare. (!)
Special vs. General Law: The Court determined that the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act is a "Special Act" dealing specifically with conditions of service, whereas the Electricity (Supply) Act is a "General Act" regarding electricity development. Under the principle Generalia specialibus non derogant, the special law prevails over the general law. (!) (!) (!)
Interpretation of Section 13-B: The Court interpreted Section 13-B of the Standing Orders Act to mean that a rule or regulation notified by the Government excludes the Act's applicability only to the extent that the rule covers the field. The notification of a single regulation is sufficient to exclude the Act regarding that specific matter. (!) (!)
Final Holding: The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act is a special law, and regulations made by the Board regarding matters covered by it (like age of superannuation) are effective only if notified by the Government under Section 13-B or certified under Section 5. Since the Board's regulation on retirement age was duly notified, it is valid, and the workmen were properly retired. (!)

Judgment

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.:- The case is primarily concerned with the age of retirement of two obscure workmen but it raises questions of general importance concerning workmen employed by most statutory bodies and corporations. It is on such chance cases that the development of our law depends.

2. The two workmen were originally employed by Messrs. Seth Ram Gopal and Partners who were licensees for the distribution of electricity under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. There were certified Standing Orders for the industrial establishment of M/s. Seth Ram Gopal and partners. The certified Standing Orders did not prescribe any age of superannuation for the employees. That, according to the workmen, meant that they could continue to work as long as they were fit and able to discharge their duties. The electricity undertaking of Messrs. Seth Ram Gopal and Partners was purchased by the U. P. State Electricity Board, with effect from 15-12-1964, under the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The employees of Seth Ram Gopal and Partners became the employees of the U. P. State Electricity Board. The U. P. State Electricity Board, which it is no longer disputed is an industrial establishment to which the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, applies neither made nor got certified any Standing Orders as it was bound so to do under that Act. But it is evident, though not admitted, from two letters, one from the Superintending Engineer in reply to a letter dated 31-12-1966 from the Executive Engineer and the other from the Certifying Officer for Standing Orders and Labour Commissioner to the General Secretary of the Employees Union that the Board and the workmen considered the certified Standing Orders of the establishment of Seth Ram Gopal and Partners as applicable to them even after the purchase of the undertaking by the Board. This, however, is not very material. The Board, as said earlier, made and got certified no standing orders either in regard to age of superannuation or in regard to any other matter mentioned in the schedule to the Standing Orders Act. We may mention here that by reason of a notification D/- 17-11-1959 "age of superannuation or 68 retirement, rate of pension or any other facility which the employers may like to extend or may be agreed upon between the parties" is one of the matters in respect of which an employer to whom the Standing Orders Act applies is bound to make Standing Orders and get them certified. However, on May 28, 1970, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh notified, under Section 13-B of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, a regulation made by the U. P. Sate Electricity Board under section 79 (c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The notification was as follows :

"No. 3822-E/70/XXII-PB-15EH-67

May 28, 1970

In pursuance of the provisions of Section 13-B of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946 (Act No. 20 of 1946), the Governor is pleased to notify in the official Gazette that the U. P. State Electricity Board has made the following Regulations under sub-sec. (c) of S. 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (Act No. 54 of 1948) -

"Notwithstanding any rule or an order or paractice hitherto followed, the date of compulsory retirement of an employee of the Board will be the date on which he attains the age of 58 years; provided that -

(I) in the case of the inferior servants of the Board, whose counterparts under State Government are at present entitled to serve up to the age of 60 years, the age of compulsory retirement will be the date on which they attain the age of 60 years.

(ii) the Board or its subordinate appointing authority may require an employee to retire after he attains or has attained the age of 55 years on three months notice or three months salary in lieu thereof without assigning any reason".

Acting in pursuance of this regulation as notified by the Governor, the Board sought to retire the two respondents on July 2, 1972, and July 7,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1978 Supreme(SC) 226

Cases Referred (6)