SUDHIR SOLEMON SAHOO Vs. ORISSA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner. a Meter Reader under the Orissa State Electricity Board, has prayed for quashing the order of superannuation, which has been annexed as Annexure-3, on his attaining the 58th year inter alia on the ground that he being an employee of the erstwhile Cuttack Electric Supply Company and there being no' age of superannuation for the employees of the said Company and further the said Company having been taken over by the Orissa State Electricity Board, the conditions of service cannot be changed to the detriment of the employees of the said Company.

(2.) The petitioner's case, briefly stated, is that the Cuttack Electric Supply Company had employed the petitioner as an employee and the conditions of service of the employees of the Company were being regulated by a Certified Standing Order which had been duly certified under S. 5(3) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. I n the said Company there was no contract fixing the age of superannuation and, therefore, the employees were entitled to continue in service till they were found medically fit. When the Government of Orissa took over the Company on 1-2-1962, the Company itself had filed a writ petition challenging the taking over. In the said writ petition, the State Government gave the undertaking that the employees of the erstwhile Company would be permitted to continue to work on the same terms and conditions as before and the writ petition was later on compromised on Government agreeing to pay Rs. 18 lakhs to the Company. Subsequently there have been several adjudications by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Courts and in similar circumstances a writ petition had also been filed in this Court in O.J.C. 941 of 1976 which was disposed of by judgment dated 20-9-1976 (reported in 1977 Lab IC 336). In the said case it was held by this Court that the notice of superannuation was without jurisdiction and could not be sustained. As the said judgment still governs the field, the order of the Board superannuating the petitioner as per Annexure-3 must be quashed.

(3.) The stand of the Board in the counter affidavit filed in this case is that the judgment of this Court in O.J.C. No. 941 of 1976 was challenged in the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 1443 and 1444 of 1976 as well as in Civil Appeals Nos. 58 to 64 of 1977, wherein the Supreme Court stayed the operation of the judgment and ultimately the Civil Appeals were disposed of with the observation that the rights of the parties would be governed by the order passed in the stay application which would be regarded as the final order for the purpose of these appeals and, therefore, in the eye of law, it must be held that the judgment of this Court in O.J.C. No. 941 of 1976 has been set aside by the Supreme Court. Alternatively, a stand has been taken that since the age of superannuation has now been fixed by Regulations framed by the Board in exercise of powers conferred under S. 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, and the said Regulations having fixed the age of superannuation at 58, the impugned order cannot be said to be illegal.