VIRENDRAKUMAR JAYANTILAL GANATRA Vs. GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of petitions is filed by the former employees of the respondent - Gujarat Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'), whose services have been terminated by the Board by resorting to Regulation No. 113 of the Services Regulations which have been framed by the Board in exercise of powers conferred by section 79 (c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'). The said regulation has been pressed into service to summarily discharge the petitioners from service on the ground of continued absence from service despite warning to return to duty. In all cases except one the petitioners who had been transferred out of their circle had not joined the duty at the transferred place despite intimations/notices having been given to them by the Board. Their absence on duty at the place of transfer was, therefore, treated as continued absence from duty under Regulation 113 of the Regulations and their services were terminated on that ground.

(2.) Mr. B.P. Tanna, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 8587 of 1998 has submitted that in his case the termination of service is not by way of simple discharge, but it is an order of dismissal which is passed by way of penalty treating the unauthorized absenteeism as act of misconduct and, therefore, the requisite procedure under the provisions of the Gujarat Electricity Board (Conduct, Punishment and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Conduct and Appeal Rules') ought to have been followed. He has further submitted that even if the impugned order amounts to discharge simpliciter in accordance with the provisions of the Regulation 113, it would be 'retrenchment' as defined under the provisions of section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.D. Act') and before effecting the retrenchment, the Board was required to follow the procedure prescribed by the provisions of Section 25 (F) of the I.D. Act, but the same has not been followed and, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. He has further submitted that service of permanent employee who has been in the establishment since long cannot be terminated without affording to him an opportunity of hearing. In other words, according to him, in such case the minimum requirement of following the principles of natural justice has to be complied with and when that is not done, the act becomes violative of principles of natural justice and hence bad in law. He has further submitted that the Regulation 113 is violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and it is required to be declared ultra-vires the aforesaid constitutional provisions. Lastly he has submitted that since the impugned order has not been passed by the competent authority, it is required to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Since the question regarding validity of Regulation 113 has been raised in these petitions and the same has been challenged on the ground of it being violative of constitutional provisions, in particular of Articles 14, 16, 19 (1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, I will first examine the impugned provision of the Regulations from that angle.