LexU.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANOTHER versus THE LABOUR COURT (I) U.P., KANPUR AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
!282
•
U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY. BOARD AND ANOTHER
v
THE LABOUR COURT (I) l:J.P., KANPUR AND OTHERS
•
October 6, 1983 ..
(D. A. DESAI, 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.]
'
Industrial Employment {Standing Orders) Act; 1946-Workme; employed
· by a company-No age of retirement fixed-Company naliona/istd-Workmen
opted·to serve-Service regulations fran1ed and notified-Assurance by manage·
ment tha,t old service conditions would apply to company emp!oye'es-fV/Jether
vaiid-Work1nen, whet~er bound.by ne~ regu/a(ions.
The respondent·workman entered service as a coolie in 1945 undct the
K.anpur ElectricitY SuppJy Corporatioh Limited. When the time the company
bad-no.rules as tO the age of retireme'nt for its employees and therefore -his
date of birth was not entered in the service card. When the Corporation was
nationalised the new managem'ent, without asking him. as to his date of birth,
Showed his age as 20 years 9 month~. From tile vjllage records it was found
that he was born.. On 24.6.1924. Meanwhile, the new management got the
Standing Orders certified without making any provision for the. age of retire·
rnent. When the Electricity Board constituted under -the Electricity (Supply)
Act, 19~8. took over· the n1anagemcnt of the Ad1ninistration in .1949 it \\'as
made clear that conditions· of service of work1nen would not be adversely
affected .. · But on 31st January, 1979 the workman was retired from service on
the ground that he had completed 58 years,of age. The workn1an complained
that he was retire4 in contravention of i1is conditions of serVice according to
which there was no age of retirement.
The labour court held that even after framing the fcgulations under
section 79C of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, fixing the age of retirement
at 58 3.nd· notifying then1 under section 13B of the Industrial Employment
(Standing Orders) ~ct, "1946, the new management made it cleilr to the
employee that old service conditions of the employees wouldA contintie to
operate and that a similar assurance was .,given to the respondent .in Y{riting
that the new regulations would not appl.Y to hi~. In this view the respondent's
retirement was held to be invali.d.
,,
A Uowing the appeal.
•
HELD: The workman is bound by the regu]atior:is fixing the age of
retirement at 58 and therefore his rCtiremen.t on attaining the age of superan-
nuation was correct. [287 CJ
·
.
The Industrial En1ptoyn1ent (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 is a special law
in regarcPto matters e~umerated in the schedule. The regu}ations n1ade by the
Electricity Board with respect to _an)' of tho~e ma tiers are of no C(ffect unless
,r
:.. ..
-
•
-
..
-~
U.P.S.E. BOARD LABOUR COURT (Varadarajan, J.)
• 283
•
f
they are either notified by the Government under section 13B or certified by
the Certifying Officer under section 5 of the Standing Orders Act.· In regard
to matters in respect of which regulations made_ by the Board have ·not been
notified by the Governor or in respect of.which no regulations had been m\de
by the Board. the Standing OrderS Act would continue to apply. Since, in the
instant case, the regulations framed by the Board with regard to the age of
retirement under seCtion 79C have been notified by the Government under
section 13B of the Stallding Orders Act, the respondent is bound by those
regulations and his retirement on attain,ing the age of 58 years was correct.
-
[286 F-H; 287 A;BJ
U.P. State Electric#y· Board and others v, Hari Shanker Jain and·'others,
[1979] 1 S.C.R. 355, applied.
-
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3549 (NL)
c
of 1982.
Appeal by Special leave against the Award passed by the
Labour Court (I) Kanpur dated 16th Dece!Jlber~ 1980 in Adjudi>ation
case No. 8 of 1980.
S. Markandeya for the AppHlants.
Hari Swqrup, Manoj Swarup and ·Ms. Lalita Kohli for the
D
"111
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
V ARADAR•JAN, J.
This t\ipeal by special leave is directed
_against the award of the Labour Court, Kanpur in Adjudiction Case
No. 8 of 1980 holding that the retirement of the second respondent
Jag Dutt from 31.3.f979 is unjustifiable and directing his reinstate·
ment with back wages with a right to work so long as he is physically
fit.
The second respondent entered service as a coolie on I L4.1945
under the then Kanpur Electricity Supply Corporation Limited. No
date of birth was mentioned in his Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.