THE NAGPUR ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER CO., LTD. & OTHERS versus K. SHREEPATHIRAO

Citation: [1959] 1 S.C.R. 463 · Decided: 11-04-1958 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
• 
~.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
463 
THE NAGPUR ELECTRIC LIGHT ANI) POWER 
CO., LTD. & OTHERS 
v. 
K. SHREEPATHIRAO 
(S. R. DAS c. J., VENKATARAMA AIYAR, s. K. DAS, 
GAJENDRAGADKAR and VIVIAN BosE JJ.) 
Termination of Service-Co~pany E,;,,ployee-Standing Orders 
-Construction-Employees ~nd workmen-Distinction. 
The services of the respondent, an ·employee of the appellant 
compaf1y, were terminated in accordance with the Standing Orders 
of the company, approved by the 
appropriate authorities 
under the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing 
Orders) Act, 1946, and the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial 
Disputes Settlement Act, 1947· Standing Order No. 2(a) defined 
" employees" as "all persons ... employed in the Office or Mains 
Department or Stores or Power House or Receiving Station of the 
Company.~.whose names and ticket numbers are included in the 
departmental musters ". The Standing Orders also· defined the 
term "workman " and provided that every workman should have 
a ticket. 
No ticket had been issued to the respondent by the 
company, and consequently his ticket number. was not included 
n the departmental muster. The respondent challenged the 
validity of the order terminating his services by an application 
made before the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution 
on the grounds, inter alia, that the Standing Orders in question 
were confined to those employees only to whom tickets were 
issued, and that as no ticket was issued to him he wa·s not an 
employee within the meaning of the Standing Orders which did 
not therefore apply to him and, consequently, the termination of 
his services under Standing Order No. 16(1) was illegal: 
Held, (1) that the words "whose names.and ticket numbers 
are included in the departmental musters" occurring in Standing 
Order No. 2 (a) should be read as "whose names and .tick€t num-
bers, if any, are included in the departmental musters"; 
' 
Cortis v. The Kent Water Works Company, (1827) 7 B. & C. 
314; 108 E. R. 741 anq Perumal Goundan v. The· Thirunittla-
rayapuram J ananukoola Dhanasekhara Sangha Nidhi, (1918) I.LR. 
41 Mad. 624, applied. 
• 
(2) that under the Standing Orders, in which a distinctionis 
made between ' employees' and 'workmen', while e,very work-
man must have a ticket, there may be employees who may have no 
tickets the possession of which is riot an essential characteristic 
of an employee; and, 
(3) that the Standing Orders apply to all employees for 
whose benefit they !)ave been made . 
• 
April II. 
• 
464 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1959) 
Accordipgly, the Standing Orders were applicable to the 
respondent and the termination of his service in accordance with 
The Nagpur Iilec· Standing Order No. 16(1) was valid and, therefore, the application 
tric Light and Power made by hiin to the High Court must fail. 
Co., Ltd., 
v. 
Shrlepathi J?ao 
• 
Cn1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
5 of 1958. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated September 26, l!l56, of the former Nagpur 
High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 66 of 1956, 
arising out of the judgment and order dated April 14, 
1956, of the said High Court in Misc. Petition Ng. 6 of 
1956. 
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General of India, B. Sen, 
D. B. Padhya and J. N. Shroff, for the appellants. 
ll. V. S. J1 ani, for the respondent . 
• 
1958. 
April 11. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
s R. Das J. 
S. K. DAS J.-This is an appeal by special leave. 
, 
.The appellants before us are the Nagpur Electric Light 
and Power Co. Ltd. (hereinaftc1' referred to as the 
Company), a public limited company having its regis-
tered office at Nagpur in Madhya Pradesh, its Manager, 
and Assistant Manager. The respondent, Shreepathi 
Hao, joined the service of the Company as a typist on 
a salary of Its. 30 per month in .July, 1936. He rose 
in rank from time to time and was appointed Deputy 
Head Clerk in 1947 in the grade of Rs. 120-10-225. 
Since 1952 he has been receiving a basic sa!My of 
Rs. 245 per month. On Xovember 28, 1955, an 
ex plan a ti on was called for from him with regard to 
the issue of certain bills to consumers of electricity 
called "high tension consumers.", without having 
certain "notes for the information of consumers" 
printed at tlre back of the bills. 
The respondent sub-
mitted his explanation on the next clay, marking a 
copy thereof to one of the directors of the Company. 
On December 2, 1955, he was again asked to 0

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.