Chinnappa Reddy, J. - (1.) 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 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, 1972 respectively on their attaining the age of 58 years. The respondents thereupon filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court challenging the regulation made by the Board and its notification by the Governor. Their contention was that the Board was not competent to make a regulation in respect of a matter covered by the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act. The writ petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge. The respondents preferred a special appeal and the Division Bench which heard the special appeal in the first instance referred the following three questions to a Full Bench: "(1) Whether the Indusrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 applies to the industrial establishments of the State Electricity Board (2) Whether the Standing Orders framed for an industrial establishment of an electrical undertaking case to be operative on the purchase of the undertaking by the Board or on the framing of regulations under S. 79 (c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act. 1948) (3) Whether S. 13-B of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, applies only to industrial establishments of the Government or also to other industrial establishments - The Full Bench answered the question as follows: "1. The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 applies to the industrial establishment of the State Electricity Board; 2. The Standing Orders framed in an industrial establishment by an electrical undertaking do not cease to be operative on the purchase of the undertaking by the Board or on framing of the regulations under S. 79 (c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. 3. Section 13-B of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders ) Act, 1946, applies only to the industrial establishments of the government and to no other establishments." Following the opinion of the Full Bench, the Division Bench allowed the special appeal and issued a writ quashing the notification dated May 28, 1970 and directing the U. P. State Electricity Board not to enforce the regulation against the appellants before them. The U. P. State Electricity Board, having obtained a certificate from the High Court under Art. 133 (1) of the Constitution, has preferred this appeal.
(3.) Shri G. B. Pai learned counsel for the appellant did not canvass the correctness of the answer of the Full Bench to the first question referred to it. He confined his attack to the answers to the second and third questions. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram (1975) 3 SCR 619 and Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (1967) 3 SCR377, Shri Pai argued that the U. P. State Electricity Board was an authority within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution and that the regulations made by the Board under S. 79 (c) of the Act had the "full force and effect of the statute and the force of law" so as to displace, override or supersede Standing Orders made and certified under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, which, he submitted were mere contractual conditions of service subjected to a quasi-judicial process and which, therefore, could not take precedence over legislatively processed regulations. The learned counsel further submitted that S. 79 (c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act was a special law and that it prevailed over the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act. Alternately, he submitted, the notifying of the regulation regarding age of superannuation under S. 13-B of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act excluded the applicability of that Act in regard to the subject of age of superannuation. He urged that S. 13-B was not confined in its application to Government undertaking only or to cases where there were comprehensive sets of rules, as was thought by the High Court.;