9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge to the notification dated 17.04.1997 by petitioners as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Dispute over qualifications for certain posts and denial of free electricity to future incumbents. 3. Interpretation of settlement dated 08.05.1984 and subsequent amendment to regulations. Issue 1: Challenge to Notification: The petitioners contested the legality of the notification dated 17.04.1997, alleging it was arbitrary and violated various articles of the Indian Constitution. The notification amended regulations regarding qualifications for certain positions and denied free electricity to future employees. The petitioners, a trade union representing the workers, argued that the changes were in contravention of an earlier arbitration award from 1984. They claimed the amendments were invalid, irrational, and discriminatory, citing relevant legal precedents to support their case. Issue 2: Dispute over Qualifications and Free Electricity: The dispute involved the qualifications required for Junior Assistants and Assistant Linemen, as well as the denial of free electricity to future employees. The petitioners argued that the award from 1984 extended the benefit of free power supply to all workers, present, and future. They contended that unless the award was modified, the Corporation had no authority to withdraw this benefit. However, the respondent Corporation justified the amendments, stating they were within its prerogative as an employer to set qualifications and conditions of service. They argued that changes in the organization warranted modifications to benefits for future employees. Issue 3: Interpretation of Settlement and Regulations: The court analyzed the settlement from 1984 and subsequent amendments to regulations. It referenced legal principles stating that settlements between employers and workers could be altered through new settlements, awards, or legislation. In this case, as there was no fresh settlement or award after 1984, the Corporation's amendment to regulations was considered a valid exercise of legislative power. The court concluded that the Corporation had the authority to withdraw the benefit of free power supply to future employees, as the amended regulations had the force of law. In conclusion, the court rejected the writ petition, ruling in favor of the respondent Corporation. The court upheld the legality of the amended regulations and the Corporation's decision to deny free electricity to future employees. The judgment emphasized the Corporation's authority to set qualifications and conditions of service, highlighting the distinction between existing and future employees in determining benefits and obligations.
|
