- (1.) R. H. Zaidia. J. Challenging the validity of the order dated 1. 11. 1995 passed by respondent No. 2, Additional Secretary, U. P. Slate Electricity Board, Lucknow Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33018 of 1995, Mahendra Singh Tyagi and others v. U. P. State Electricity Board, Lucknow through its Secretary and others was filed in this Court on 17. 11. 1995 this Court was pleased to pass following orders: "issue notice. Shri Ranjeet Saxena, Counsel appearing for the respondents prays for, and is granted, a week's time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within another two weeks. The application for interim relief shall be listed for orders after expiry of the aforesaid period. Meanwhile, having heard the counsel for the petitioner and having perused the order passed by Special Appeal Bench of this Court (Annexure 2 to the Writ Petition) and the order dated 1. 11. 1995 (Annexure- 3), I am prima fade satisfied that the direction as to notice comprehended by Section 4 (g) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has not been complied with by the respondents. Accordingly, is provided herein that the policy decision contained in Annexure 3 to the writ petition, shall not be implemented except after observing the requirements of Section 4 (g) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act as directed by Special Appeal Bench of this Court. Sd/- S. R. Singh. J. "
(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY, the validity of the said order dated 1. 11. 1995 was challenged by a number of persons/employees of U. P. State Electricity Board, Lucknow. Some of the said petitions came up for hearing before this Court on 22. 11. 1995. On the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioners the said writ petitions were directed to be listed along with the record of writ petition No. 33018 of 1985 on 23. 11. 1995. On 23. 11. 1995 arguments were heard at some length. Since the grievance of the learned counsel for the respondents was that, the order dated 17. 11. 1995, referred to above, was passed without affording him an opportunity to produce the relevant regulations i. e. Prashaskiya Karamchari Varg Lekha Viniyamavali, 1994, before this Court, on his request, the cases were directed to be put up on 24. 11. 1995 as, in the meanwhile, he wanted to file the counter affidavit. The questions under consideration were as to whether the said regulations were notified and were placed before the State Legislature as required under Section 79 and Section 79-A of the Electricity (Supply) Act before they were allegedly enforced by respondent No. 1.
(3.) ON 24. 11. 1995 instead of filing the counter affidavit, short counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents narrating the history of litigation between the parties and that aforesaid regulations were notified on 9. 8. 1994, and that writ petitions filed by the petitioner were, therefore, liable to be dismissed, but along with that the copy or regulation was not filed. This Court, therefore, required the learned counsel for the respondents to file the Gazette notification whereby the said regulations were published or a photostat copy thereof, alongwith a supplementary counter affidavit. On 27. 11. 1995, instead of filing the Gazette notification a photostat copy of the draft of the aforesaid regulation was filed along with the short supplementary again asserting that regulations were already notified. The case was thereafter, directed to be put up on 1. 12. 1995. On 1. 12. 1995 the learned counsel for the respondent has filed second short supplementary counter affidavit annexing therewith the copies of letters alleged to nave been received by him through Fax. The case thereafter, heard on 1. 12. 1995.;