9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (8) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yees. I the, according to the workmen meant that they could continue to work as long as they were fit and able to discharge their duties. The electricity undertaking of Ms. Seth Ram Gopal and Partners was purchased be The U.P. State Electricity Board, with effect from 15-12-1964, under The provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The employees of Seth Ram Gopal and Partners became the employees of the U.P. the Electricity Board. The U.P. State Electricity Board which it is no longer disputed is an industrial establishment to which the Industrial Employment (Standing orders) Act, 1946, applies, neither made nor got certified any Standing orders as it was bound so to do under that Act. But it is evident, though no admitted from two letters, one from the Superintending Engineer in reply to a letter dated 31-12-166 from the Executive Engineer and the other from the Certifying officer for Standing orders and Labour Commissioner to the General Secretary of the Employees' Union that the Board and the workmen considered the certified Standing orders of the establishment of Seth Ran Gopal and Partners as applicable to them even after the purchase of the undertaking by the Board ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontention was that the Board was not competent to make a regulation in respect of a matter covered by the Industrial Employment (Standing orders) Act. The writ petition as dismissed by a learned Single Judge. The respondents preferred a special appeal and the Division Bench which heard the Special Appeal in the first instance referred the following three questions to a Full Bench: (1) Whether the Industrial Employment (Standing orders) Act, 1946 applies to the Industrial establishments of the State Electricity Board ? (2) Whether the standing orders framed for an Industrial establishment of an electrical undertaking cease to be operative on the purchase of the undertaking by the Board or on the framing of regulations under section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948? (3) Whether section 13-B of the Industrial Employment (Standing orders) Act, 1946, applies only to industrial establishments of the Government or also to other industrial establishments ? The Full Bench answered the questions as follows: l. The Industrial Employment (Standing orders) Act 1946 applies to the industrial establishments of the State Electricity Board. 2. The Standing Orders framed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was thought by the High Court. Shri R. K. Garg, for the Workmen contended that the Industrial Employment (Standing orders) Act was an act specially designed to define and secure reasonable conditions of service for workmen in industrial establishments employing one hundred or more workmen and to that end to compel employers to make Standing orders and to et them certified by a quasi-judicial authority. It was, therefore, a special Act with reference to its subject matter. The Electricity Supply Act, on the other hand, was intended to provide for the rationalisation of the production and supply of electricity, and generally for taking measures conducive to electrical development.'' It was not specially designed to define the conditions of service of employees of Electricity Board or to displace the Standing orders Act. The power given to an Electricity Board under Section 79(c) to make regulations providing for the duties of officers and servants of the Board and their salaries, allowances and other conditions of service was no more than the usual, general power possessed by every employer. Shri Garg argued that the Industrial Employment Standing orders Act was a speci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of precision to the employees. There was no uniformity of conditions of service for employees discharging identical duties in fl the same establishment. Conditions of service were generally e and the result of oral arrangements which left the employees to The mercy of the employer. With the growth of the trade union movement and the right of collective bargaining, employees started putting A forth their demands to end this sad and confusing state of affairs. Recognising the rough deal that was being given to workers 1 employers who would not define their conditions of service and he inevitability f industrial strife in such a situation, the legislature intervened and enacted the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act. It was stated in the statement of objects and reasons; Experience has shown that Standing orders defining the conditions of recruitment, discharge, disciplinary action, holidays, leave etc., go a long way towards minimising, friction between the management and workers ill industrial undertakings. Discussion on the subject at the tripartite Indian Labour Conferences revealed a consensus of opinion in favour of legislation. The Bill accordingly seeks to pr vid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le. The Certifying officer is invested with the powers of a Civil Court for the purposes of receiving evidence, administering oaths, enforcing the attendance of witnesses etc. etc. The order of the Certifying Officer is subject to an appeal to the prescribed appellate authority. The Standing orders as finally certified are required to be entered in a Register maintained by the Certifying officer. The employer is required to prominently post the Certified Standing orders on special boards in. maintained for that purpose. This is the broad scheme of the Act. The Act also provides for exemptions. About that, later. The Act, as originally enacted, precluded the Certifying officer from adjudicating upon the fairness or reasonableness of the draft Standing orders submitted by the employer but an amendment introduced in 1956 now casts a duty upon the Certifying officer to adjudicate upon the fairness or reasonableness of the Draft Standing orders. The Scheme of the Act has been sufficiently explained by this Court in Associated Cement t Co. LTD. v. f. D. Vyas(l), Rohtak Hissar District Electricity Supply Co. Ltd'. v. State of U.P. Ors. [1966] 2 SCR 863, and Western dia Match Co. Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ards. It is an act to regulate the coordinated development of electricity. It is a special Act in reread to the subject of development of electricity, even as the Industrial Employment (Standing orders) Act is a special Act in regard to the subject of Conditions of Service of workmen in industrial establishments. If Sec. 79(c) of the Electricity Supply Act generally provides for the making of regulations providing for the conditions of service of tile employees of the Board, it can only be regarded as a general provides which must yield to the special provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing orders) Act in respect of matters covered by the latter Act. The maim Generalia specialibus non derogant is quite well known. The rule flowing from the maxim has been explained in Mary Seward v. The owner of the Vera Cruz (l) as follows: Now if anything be certain it is this, that where there are general words in a later Act capable of reasonable and sensible application without extending them to subjects specially dealt with by earlier legislation, you are not to hold that earlier and special legislation indirectly repealed, altered, or derogated from merely by force of such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it passed the Electricity Supply Act and Parliament never meant that the Standing orders Act should stand protanto re pealed by Sec. 79(c) of the Electricity Supply Act. We are clearly of the view that the provisions of the Standing orders Act must prevail over S. 79(c) of the Electricity Supply Act, in regard to matters to which the Standing orders Act applies. Shri G. B. Pai, relying on what was said in the Rajasthan state A Electricity Board case and Sukhdev Singh Ors's case argued that the regulations made under Sec. 79(c) of the Electricity Supply Act being statutory in nature stood on so high a pedestal as to override, by their very nature, the Standing orders made under the Standing orders Act. The observations on which he relied are, in the Rajasthan State Electricity Bard case: The state, as defined in Art. 12, is thus comprehended to include bodies created for the purpose of promoting the educational and economic interests of the people. The State, as constituted by our Constitution, is further specifically empowered under Art. 298 to carry on any trade or business. The circumstance that the Board under the Electricity Supply Act is required to carry on some ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion based on the notification made under Sec. 13-B of the Standing orders Act. Section 13-B reads as follows: 13B. Nothing in this Act shall apply to an industrial establishment in so far as the workmen employed therein are persons to whom the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules, Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, Revised Leave Rules, Civil Service Regulations, Civilians in Defense, Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules or the Indian Railway Establishment Code or any other rules or regulations that may be notified in this behalf by the appropriate Government in the official Gazette, apply . The notification made by the Government has already been extracted by us. Some doubts were expressed whether the U.P. state electricity Board had in fact made the regulation and whether the Government merely notified the relation without applying its mind. The learned counsel appearing for the Board and the Government placed before us the relevant records and note-files and we are satisfied that the Board did make the regulation and the Government did apply its mind. The High Court expressed the views that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r conditions of service are notified by the Government under Sec. 13-B. Shri Garg relied on certain observations of the Madras High Court in Raman Nambissan v. State Electricity Board(l), and Thiruvenkataswami v. Coimbatore Municipality(). In Raman Nambissan's case it was held that the mere fact that the Electricity Board had adopted the rules and regulations if the Government of Madras a its transitory rules and regulations did not bring the workmen employed in industrial establishments under the Board within the mischief of Sec. 1 3-P. Of the Industrial Establishment's (Standing order) ct. In Thiru Venkataswami's'. ca it was held that rules made by the Government of under the District Municipalities Act could not be considered to be rules notified under Se. 13-B of the Standing orders Act merely because the rules were made by the Government and published in the Government Gazette. We agree with the conclusion in. both case. In Thiru Venkataswami case Kailasam J., also observed that the industrial employment (Standing order) Act was a special act relating exclusively to the service conditions of persons employed in industrial establishments, and, therefore, its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'Closing and reopening of Sections of the industrial establishments and temporary stoppages of work and the rights and liabilities of he employer and workman arising therefrom' etc. To exclude the applicability of Standing orders relating to all these matters because the Fundamental Rules, the Civil Service Rules or the Civil Services Control, Classification an Appeal Rules provide for a few. matters like 'Classification of workmen' or 'suspension or dismissal for misconduct' would be to reverse the processes of history, apart from leading to unjust and untoward results. It will place workmen once again at the mercy of the employer be he ever so benign and it will certainly promote industrial strife. We have indicated what according to us is h proper construction of Sec. 13-B. That is the only construction which gives meaning and sense to Sec. 13-B and that is a construction which can legitimately be said to conform to the Directive Principles of state Policy proclaimed in Articles 42 and 43 of the Constitution. We, therefore, hold that the Industrial Employment (Standing orders) Act is a special law in regard to the matters enumerated in the schedule an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
