BHAI LAL Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution relates to the age of retirement of the workmen of the State Electricity Board,. Uttar Pradesh, working in its various undertakings at Alld., Kanpur, Varanasi, Bereilly, Etawah, Mathura and Jhansi. It is the common case of all the parties that Electricity Undertakings at various places mentioned above were originally owned and controlled by private companies (hereinafter referred to as the erstwhile licencees) which had framed Standing Orders regulating the terms and conditions of their respective employees. Whereas the Electricity Undertaking at Kanpur owned by Begg Southerland & Co. was, after being taken over by the State Government, eventually transferred to the State Electricity Board. Electricity undertakings at remaining places, were directly taken over from their respective owners by the State Electricity Board sometime between the years 1964-75. Parties are also agreed that the standing orders, framed by the erstwhile licencees, excepting for those at Allahabad and Varanasi, did not prescribe any age of superannuation for their workmen. So far as the Electricity undertakings at Varanasi and Allahabad are concerned, there is some dispute between the parties with regard to the prescription of age of superannuation in the standing orders framed by the erstwhile licencees. But as we will presently stow, this controversy will not at all be relevant for deciding the petitions filed by the employees of the undertakings at these two places.

(2.) On 28.5.70 the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by section 13-B of the Industrial Establishment (Standing Orders) Act, and by section 79 (c) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, notified the regulation applicable to the employees of the State Electricity Board throughout the State, prescribing 58 years at the age for their superannuation. Acting on the basis of these regulations, the State Electricity Board issued notices to the petitioners informing them that they were, after attaining the age of 58 years, to retire from service with effect from the date mentioned in the notice. The petitioners then came up before this Court and challenged the validity of the regulations notified by the State Government on 28.5.70.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the workman in all these cases, submitted that the standing orders which had been framed by these erstwhile licencees prior to the respective undertakings being taken over by the State Electricity Board continued to be operative even after those undertakings had been taken over by the State Electricity Board. Inasmuch as these standing orders did not lay down any age for compulsory retirement of the employees, they emphasised that according to terms and conditions of service applicable to them., the employees had a right to remain in the service of the undertaking till such time they as were physically and mentally fit to perform their duties and that they could not be retired at any fixed age. On the face of already existing standing orders framed under the Industrial Establishing Standing Orders Act, the respondents did not have any jurisdiction to frame regulations under section 79 (c) of the Electricity Supply Act, prescribing the age, terms and conditions of the service of their workmen. The stand taken on behalf of the State Electricity Board, however, is that in view of Section 13-B of the Standing Orders Act, and section 79 (c) of the Electricity Supply Act, they had ample jurisdiction to frame regulations prescribing the conditions of services of their workmen and to lay down the age for their compulsory retirement.