1996 (3) TMI 543 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- High Court's observations against officials of the Electricity Board
- Government's policy decision on absorption of employees of a wound-up Corporation
- Appellant Electricity Board's refusal to appoint the first respondent as Electrician
- Interpretation of Sections 15 and 78-A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948
- Compliance with High Court's order and deletion of pungent observations

Analysis:
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of pungent observations made by the High Court against the officials of the Electricity Board. The High Court criticized the Chairman and Secretary of the Electricity Board for flouting the State Government's directions and not appointing a retrenched employee despite the Government's policy decision to absorb such employees. The Supreme Court noted the circumstances leading to the observations, emphasizing the Government's request to appoint the first respondent as an Electrician, which the Electricity Board resisted citing autonomy under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.

The Court delved into the interpretation of Sections 15 and 78-A of the Electricity Act. It highlighted that Section 78-A empowers the State Government to give directions on policy matters to the Board, but in this case, the directions regarding staff appointment did not qualify as policy matters. The Court cited a previous judgment to support the appellant's stance that the Government's directions to appoint the first respondent did not fall within the purview of Section 78-A, and the Board had the authority to appoint staff as necessary to fulfill its functions under the Act.

Furthermore, the Court acknowledged the appellant's compliance with the High Court's order to appoint the first respondent and expressed satisfaction with the appellant's decision to retain the employee regardless of the case's outcome. The appellant sought the removal of the harsh observations made by the High Court, contending that the observations were unwarranted. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that such stringent remarks should be avoided unless exceptional circumstances warrant them. Consequently, the Court set aside the critical observations from the High Court's judgment and disposed of the appeal without costs.