- (1.) AGAINST the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing their writ petition the two appellants preferred the present special appeal. After hearing counsel for the patties a Division Bench on January 6, 1971, referred the following three questions for opinion to a larger Bench: 1. Whether the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1945, applies to the industrial establishments of the State Electricity Board? 2. Whether the standing orders framed for an industrial establishment of an electrical undertaking cases to be operative on the purchase of the undertaking by the Board or on the framing of regulations under Section 79 (e) of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948? 3. Whether Section 13b of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, applies only to industrial establishments of the Government and also to other industrial establishments? In pursuance of the aforesaid order the case has been referred to us to answer these three questions. Before dealing with the submissions made by counsel for the parties it would be useful to narrate in a nutshell the facts and circumstances necessitating the reference.
(2.) M/s. Seth Ram Gopal and partners were licensees for the distribution of electricity under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The two appellants were their employees. Standing Orders were framed and certified for the industrial establishment of M/s. Seth Ram Gopal and Partners under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the Standing Orders Act ). No age of superannuation was prescribed in these Standing Orders. The electricity undertaking of M/s. Ram Gopal and Partners was compulsorily purchased by the U. P State Electricity Board under the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, with effect from the midnight between November 14, and 15, 1964. The applicants were reappointed by the Board along with other employees of M/s. Seth Ram Gopal and Partners on the following conditions: That they will retire from the service of the Board on attaining the age of 55 years, unless granted extension of by Board; (ii) Subject to (i) above, they will be governed in matters covered by the schedule to the Standing Orders Act by Standing Orders and in all ether matters by the Rules and Regulations of the Board. In exercise of the power conferred on it by Section 79 (c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the Board framed a regulation fixing the age of superannuation of its employees of the class of the appellants at 58 years. The State Government by a notification dated May 28, 1970, purported to notify this regulation under Section 13b of the Standing Orders Act. The two appellants were thereafter informed by the Board that they would be required to retire on July 2, 1972, and July 7, 1972, respectively on attaining the age of 58 years in accordance with the regulation aforesaid. The appellants thereupon instituted the writ petition giving rise to the present special appeal in this Court challenging the regulation and its notification by the State Government. The case of appellants was that their terms and conditions of service were governed by the Standing Orders framed and certified for the industrial establishment when it was owned by M/s. Seth Ram Gopal and Partners, that these Standing Orders continued to be operative even after the purchase of the said industrial establishment by the Board, that since the Standing Orders contained no provision regarding the age of superannuation, they were entitled to continue in service till they were fit, that the age of superannuation could be prescribed only by a notification of the Standing Orders in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders Act and that the regulation framed by the Board under Section 79 (c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, was ineffective for prescribing the age of superannuation of the appellants. The writ petition was contested by the Board on the ground that the Standing Orders Act and the Standing Orders framed in respect of the industrial establishment when it was owned by M/s. Seth Ram Gopal and Partners were no longer applicable to the employees of the Board inasmuch as (1) the provisions of Section 79 (c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, conferring power to make regulations regarding the terms and conditions of its employees by the Board were inconsistent with the provisions of the Standing Orders Act and would prevail as they were special provisions relating to one particular employer and were contained in a later enactment. (2) that even if the Standing Orders initially applied to the appellants they were ousted by the regulation when made in 1966, and (3) that by virtue of the notification under Section 13b of the Standing Orders Act the provisions of that Act ceased to apply to the industrial establishments of the Board.
(3.) THE learned single Judge was inter alia of the opinion that there was conflict between the provisions of Section 79 (c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act and those of the Standing Orders Act and the former being a special provision and being contained in a later enactment must prevail over the Standing Orders Act and, therefore, the provisions of the Standing Orders Act did not apply to the industrial establishments of the Board. In taking this view the learned single Judge place reliance on Bijili Mazdoor Sangh v. U. P. State Electricity Board The judgment in Bijili Mazdoor Sangh's case (supra) upheld in Special Appeal No. 1400 of 1969 on February 7, 1970, by V. G. Oak, C. J. , and S. N. Singh, J.;