BHAARATHIYA ELECTRICITY EMPLOYEES FEDERATION REGN NO 990/SLM AFFILIATED TO BHARATIYA MAZDOOR SANGH BMS Vs. MANAGEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Challenge in these Writ Petitions is to the Proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in (Per) B.P.(Ch.) Nos.64, 65 and 66 (SB) dated 31-3-2003.

(2.) IN (Per) B.P.Ch.No.64, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, by virtue of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978, which according to it, was applicable to the employees of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, it became necessary to adopt the orders relating to Government Pensioners to the Pensioners of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, that by G.O.No.71 dated 19-3-2003 of the State Government, the qualifying service to earn full pension having been enhanced from 30 years to 33 years, the same enhancement is also made applicable to the employees of the Board after retirement to become eligible to earn full pension. For the same reasoning, the Board also directed that pension would be determined on the average emoluments drawn during the last 10 months service alone. Following the direction in G.O.No.71 dated 19-3-2003, the above said Board proceedings were also made applicable from 1-4-2003.

(3.) MR.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel in his submissions, contended that the Electricity Board being a statutory body, it has got its own independent existence, therefore, what applies to the government employees does not automatically apply to the employees of the Board and therefore, merely by adopting the Government Orders, the Board cannot contend that it need not follow the provisions contained under the Industrial Disputes Act in particular Section 9(A) of the Act. According to the learned counsel, Regulation 9 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Liberalised Pension Regulations 1960 hereinafter called 'the Pension Regulations', which, is the saving provision, which provides that those regulations are not in derogation of the provisions of the civil service regulations applicable to the Government employees will not take away the effect of Section 9(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to the learned counsel, the Pension Regulations themselves will not apply to the Electricity Board employees who were governed by the existing contract prevailing between the Board and its employees. The learned Senior counsel would further contend that when Section 9(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act is applicable to the employees of the Board, without giving an appropriate notice under the said provision, the impugned Proceedings can not be given effect to. It was next contended that in any event, the Chairman was not competent to issue the Proceedings on behalf of the Board. Further, according to the learned counsel as the issues relate to service matters, it cannot be held that the Board is bound to follow the directives of the State Government in exercise of the powers under Section 78(A) of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948 which only talks of policy matters. One other contention of the learned counsel was that by virtue of Regulation 17(g) as well as, Explanation V (gg)(i) to Regulation 17 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations, hereinafter called 'the Service Regulations', when provisions have been made as to how retirement is to take effect and an employee would qualify for pension after completion of 20 years of service, even the Pension Regulations will have no effect inasmuch as, the Service Regulations have been framed by virtue of the powers vested with the Board under 79(c) of the Electricity Supply Act 1948. The learned Senior counsel relied upon an unreported judgment of the learned Single Judge rendered in W.P.No.11398 dated 22-12-1994 which was also confirmed in W.A.No.153 of 1995, dated 21-7-1997, as well as, the Division Bench Judgment in W.A.No.138 of 1960 dated 15-12-1960. Reliance was also placed upon 1968 Kerala 76 (A.M.MANI versus KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM & OTHERS).