- (1.) R. R. K. Trivedi, J. Vidyut Mazdoor Sanghathan, Lucknow, filed Special Appeal No. 414 of 1996 challenging order dated 1-5- 1996 passed by learned Single Judge, in Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 15034 of 1996. By this order operation of the Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Parishad Parichalkiya Karam-chari Varg Sewa Niyamawali, 1995, was stayed during pendency of the writ petition.
(2.) SPECIAL Appeal No. 578 of 1996 was forced by U. P, Electricity Board against the order dated 1-5-1996 passed in the same writ petition. During hearing of SPECIAL Ap peal No. 414 of 1996 on 16- 7-1996, learned counsel for the parties agreed that the Spe cial appeal should be heard along with con nected bunch of writ petitions for final dis posal. Thus, in pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 16-7-1996, aforesaid two appeal and the entire hunch of writ petitions known as Meter Readers' Bunch was listed before us for hearing and final decision. As the questions of law and facts involved in all these writ petitions are identical, the two appeals and all the writ petitions consisting of this bunch can be conveniently decided by a common judgment. Along with the special appeals, the three writ petitions, on which arguments have been advanced by learned counsel for the parties, are specifically men tioned in this judgment. However, the judg ment will cover the entire bunch except those writ petitions which involve different controversy. Writ petition No. 15034 of 1996 shall be the leading case. Generation of electric energy and its distribution in the country initially was mainly on private sector through licensees appointed under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. After the country attained independence, the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 was enacted for rationalisation of production and supply of electricity and for taking measures conducive to electric develop ment. Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provided for constitution and com position of the State Electricity Boards. U. P. Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) was constituted by the State Government on 30-3-1959. Provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 were amended by the Electricity Laws (U. P. Amendment) Act, 1974, i. e. U. P. Act No. 36 of 1974. The Indian Electricity (U. P. Amendment and Validation) Act, 1975, i. e. U. P. Act No. 16 of 1975, the Indian Electricity (U. P. Amendment) Act, 1976, i. e. U. P. Act No. 14 of 1976 and the Electrical Undertakings and Establishments run by the State of U. P. , local authorities and erstwhile licensees were taken over. Thus, for the State of U. P. , Board acquired a monopoly in respect of the generation and distribution of electrical energy. The employees of the State Government, local authorities and erstwhile licensees also started serving the Board on deputation basis. To safeguard their interest provisions were made by inserting new Sections 6a in and by further amending the provisions of Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The provisions in this regard shall be noticed at the relevant place in later part of this judgment. In due course the Board has become a big organisa tion having its power generation and dis tribution units spread all over the State which followed tremendous increase in the number of employees resulting in various disputes between the Board and its employees. The dispute which has come for determination before this bench in shape of bunch of writ petitions is not new. It has also old history which started with passing of order dated 29-5-1963 by the Board creating a combined cadre of meter readers, sub-sta tion operators and switch board attendants and also making them inter- changeable. However, for some reason or the other this order was not implemented. The Board passed another order on 24-3-1977 and su perseded its earlier order, dated 29-5-1963 and created a combined cadre of four categories of employees, namely, meter readers, sub station operators, switch board operators and junior meter testers. This order further provided a combined seniority of the employees of all the four categories and making their service interchangeable. Meter readers challenged this order by filing several writ petitions in this Court. However, the Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 20-9-1977 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2462 of 1975 dismissed all the petitions. Some writ petitions were also filed before the Lucknow Bench which were also dismissed by another Division Bench by a separate judgment dated 12-3-1979. The order of the Board dated 24-3-1977 was upheld. Though the order dated 24-3-1977 was upheld, it could not be implemented and the Board vide order dated 20-10-1982 stayed the interchangeability of the four categories of the employees for which a combined cadre was created by order dated 24-03-1977. Another order was passed on 19-10-1985 directing the authorities to com ply with the order dated 20- 10-1982 and not to transfer the employees of the four categories from their cadre to other cadre.
(3.) THE Director (Personnel) of the Board then passed an order on 9-5-1994 mentioning therein that the Board after having superseded its orders dated 24-3-1977, 20-10-1982 and 19-10-1985, has provided that in accordance with its earlier order dated 29- 5-1963, the services of the three categories of employees (meter readers, sub-station operators and switch board operators) have been made inter changeable. Aggrieved by this order, num ber of writ petitions were filed in this Court which were dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 29-9-1994. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, meter readers filed Special Appeal No. 755 of 1994 and other appeals which were heard by a Division Bench and were allowed by order dated 22-8-1995. THE Division Bench took the view that the order of the Board for interchangeability of service has been passed without creating a combined cadre of the three categories of the employees. THE earlier order of the Board creating com bined cadre was superseded and there ought to have been a fresh order. THE second reason for allowing the appeal was non-compliance of Section 4-1 of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act which requires for an oppor tunity to be given to the employees before changing their service conditions. It was also held that the order of interchan geability could not be justified even under the provisions of Section 79 of the Act as no statutory regulations have been framed by the Board and the order impugned in the writ petition is only an administrative order. This dispute was also raised before the Industrial Tribunal V, Lucknow, under the provisions of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The award of the Tribunal has been published in Extraordinary Gazette of U. P. , dated 27-12-1973. One employee Sheikh Islam Ahmad who was appointed as junior meter tester and reader was trans ferred on 10-10-1979 as sub station atten dant which was challenged before the In dustrial Tribunal, Allahabad as Adjudica tion Case No. 91 of 1980. The Tribunal gave its award on 17- 6-1981 and held that the transfer order in respect of workman Sheikh Islam Ahmed from the post of junior meter tester and repairer to the post of sub station operator is neither proper nor legal and he is entitled to remain on the same post con tinuously and draw the wages of the said post. The award was challenged by the U. P. State Electricity Board by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12684 of 1981 which was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 28-7-1983.;