Back
Allahbad High Court
W.BROOME
Bijli Mazdoor Sangh - Appellant
Versus
Resident Engineer, Allahabad Electric Supply Undertaking, U. P. State Electricity Board, Allahabad - Respondent
Decided On : 09/29/1969
INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDING ORDERS) ACT, 1946 - SECTION 3(2), 5, 6, 10 - ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACT, 1948 - SECTION 79(C) - STANDING ORDERS - CERTIFICATION - MODIFICATION - AGE OF RETIREMENT - DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN CLASSES OF EMPLOYEES - JURISDICTION OF CERTIFYING OFFICER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY - VALIDITY OF REGULATIONS FRAMED BY STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD.
Fact of the Case:
The Bijli Mazdoor Sangh, representing employees of the U. P. State Electricity Board in the Allahabad Electric Supply Undertaking, challenged an order passed by the Appellate Authority for Standing Orders allowing an appeal against an order of the Certifying Officer accepting a modification in the Standing Orders relating to the age of superannuation. The contention was that the Standing Orders framed by the U. P. Electric Supply Company Limited remained in force even after the concern was taken over by the State Electricity Board in 1964.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Certified Standing Orders of the U. P. Electric Supply Company Limited did not continue in force after the concern had been taken over by the State Electricity Board and could not be deemed to have become the Certified Standing Orders of the Board. The court further held that the Regulation framed by the State Electricity Board in 1966, under Section 79 (c) of the Electricity Supply Act, fixing the age of retirement at 60 for its Class IV employees and at 58 for the rest, is perfectly valid and enforceable and cannot be modified or superseded by any order of the Certifying Officer, purporting to act under Section 5 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the Certified Standing Orders of the U. P. Electric Supply Company Limited continued in force after the concern had been taken over by the State Electricity Board? 2. Whether the Regulation framed by the State Electricity Board in 1966, under Section 79 (c) of the Electricity Supply Act, fixing the age of retirement at 60 for its Class IV employees and at 58 for the rest, is valid and enforceable? 3. Whether the differentiation between different classes of employees in the matter of the age of retirement, introduced by the State Electricity Board's Regulation, is fair and reasonable? 4. Whether the impugned order of the Appellate Authority is entirely without jurisdiction?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Certified Standing Orders of the U. P. Electric Supply Company Limited did not continue in force after the concern had been taken over by the State Electricity Board because there is no provision either in the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act or in the Electricity Act for the automatic continuance of Standing Orders framed by the erstwhile licensee, after an electrical undertaking is purchased by the State Electricity Board. 2. The court held that the Regulation framed by the State Electricity Board in 1966, under Section 79 (c) of the Electricity Supply Act, fixing the age of retirement at 60 for its Class IV employees and at 58 for the rest, is valid and enforceable because the power conferred on the State Electricity Board by Section 79 (c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948 must override the power given to the Certifying Officer by Section 5 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946. 3. The court held that the differentiation between different classes of employees in the matter of the age of retirement, introduced by the State Electricity Board's Regulation, is fair and reasonable because the capacity for doing skilled work, requiring a high degree of mental alertness and physical dexterity, is likely to decline after a certain age, with the result that skilled workers suffer from impaired efficiency earlier than persons performing unskilled work. 4. The court held that the impugned order of the Appellate Authority is not entirely without jurisdiction because Section 6 (1) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, which creates the right of appeal, envisages only confirmation or modification of the Standing Orders certified by the Certifying Officer, not their complete cancellation.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with costs.
The Certifying Officer, having heard the parties, came to the conclusion that the Certified Standing Orders of the U. P. Electric Supply Co., Ltd., had been adopted by the State Electricity Board after it took over the concern and had remained applicable to all employees of the concern, that the Board had no jurisdiction to modify these Standing Orders by making Regulations under Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, that to have two different ages of superannuation for workmen employed in the same undertaking was unreasonable, and that a uniform age of superannuation should be fixed for all the workmen of the Allahabad Electricity Supply Undertaking at 60 years. An order was accordingly passed on 23-12-1967 under Section 10 read with Section 5 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, certifying Clause 32 of the Standing Orders afresh in modified form as follows :-
"An employee who has completed the age of 60 shall retire, but exemption to this may be granted by the Undertaking in deserving cases."
In appeal, however, the Appellate Authority, by the impugned order dated 29-4-1968, has held that the Certified Standing Orders of the U. P. Electric Supply Co., Ltd., had lapsed with the taking over of the concern by the State Electricity Board, and that the Board had failed to get any fresh Standing Orders certified, with the result that the application for modification presented to the Certifying Officer by the employees was misconceived and meaningless, since there were no certified Standing Orders in existence that could be modified under Section 10 of the Act. The Appellate Authority further held that the Regulation framed by the State Electricity Board fixing the age of superannuation at 58 for some of its employees and 60 years for others was not in any way unreasonable or unfair, and that this Regulation took away the jurisdiction of the Certifying Officer to give any decision regarding the age of superannuation. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the order of the Certifying Officer modifing Clause 32 of the Standing Orders was quashed.
2. The primary question that calls for consideration is whether the Appellate Authority was right in holding that the Certified Standing Orders of the U. P. Electric Supply Company Limited did not continue in force, after the concern had been taken over by the State Electricity Board and could not be deemed to have become the Certified Standing Orders of the Board. The Undertaking was acquired by the State Eletricity Board by purchase from the licensee (the U. P. Electric Supply Co., Ltd.,) under Section 5 or Section 6 of the Indian Electricity Act, Section 7 of that Act provides that where such a purchase is made "the ri
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
