SAHU GUPTA INDUSTRIES Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, M/s. Sahu Gupta Industries is a partnership firm engaged in the business of Rolling Mill. For running the Mill, the petitioner obtained electric connection from the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") with a contract demand of 3.55 K.V.A. According to the petitioner, it is a high tension consumer and the electrical energy supplied by the Board, Respondent 1 herein is required for the purpose of running the rolling mill. In this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the legality of Annexure-8A dt.13-11-1986, which is the decision of the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer of South Bihar and Chotanagpur Area of the Board, Respondent 2 under cl.(13) of the High Tension agreement, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of relief under the aforesaid clause of the agreement. It has also challenged the communication of the said decision to it under Annexure-8 dt.13-11-1986. The petitioner has further challenged the notice issued by the Electrical Superintending Engineer dt. 17-11-1986 giving it seven days notice under S.24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 for payment of the outstanding the dues, failing which a threat has been held out for disconnection of the supply of electrical energy to the establishment of the petitioner. By this writ application the petitioner has sought quashing of Annexures-8, 8A and 9 and has prayed for a direction that the respondents shall not act in pursuance of the aforesaid annexures and shall not interfere with the supply of electrical energy to the petitioner's establishment. When the writ application came up for admission on 6th April, 1987, after hearing the parties, this writ application was admitted only for consideration on the limited question as to whether lockout/closure is covered by cl.(13) of the High Tension Agreement, so that the consumers could claim proportional benefit for the period during which there was such lockout/closure. It is, therefore, not necessary to refer to the other question raised in the writ application which were also not urged at the hearing of this application, and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner confined his submissions to the aforesaid question.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that for running the rolling mill, the petitioner requires constant supply of electrical energy. The petitioner-firm was receiving the said supply for carrying on its activities till such time as certain labour problems arose on account of which the petitioner was not able to consume the supply of electrical energy made to it. It was stated that there was a workers' union in the establishment of the petitioner, known as, Sahu Gupta Shramik Sangh, which was the recognised union. In or about Aug. 1983, there was a split in the Union and, there came into being two unions who started working against each other on account of union rivalry. The result was that unreasonable and exaggerated demands were made from the management with a view to appease the workers, since both the unions were involved in enrolling members for their respective unions. The efforts of the management could not resolve the disputes, and on account of union revalry, immense loss to production resulted. A stage came when there was complete slow-down and production came to standstill. Consequently, the factory of the petitioner was closed from 17th Feb. 1984 and an intimation to this effect was given by the petitioner to the Revenue Officer of the respondent-Board by letter dt. 25th Feb. 1984, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure -1. A perusal of Annexure-1 shows that an intimation was sent to the Revenue Officer of the Respondent Board to the effect that the factory was closed since 17th Feb. 1984 ''due to some labour unrest." The case of the petitioner is that the factory reopened with effect from 29-10-1984 and necessary intimation was sent to Respondent No. 4 by letter dt. 17th Nov. 1984. According to the petitioner, the factory of the petitioner remained closed front 17-2-1984 to 28th Oct. 1984 which fact is also established by the certificate granted to this effect by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour dt. 30th Nov. 1984 a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-3. This document also shows that the factory of the petitioner was closed with effect from 17-2-1984 "due to labour trouble'' and as a result of mutual settlement, the factory had again started working with effect from 29-10-1984.

(3.) The period 17th Feb. 1984 to 28th Oct, 1984 fell in two accounting years, i.e. 1983-84 and 1984-85. Since the petitioner was prevented from consuming electrical energy, for the reasons that the factory was closed during the aforesaid period, the petitioner was entitled to proportionate reduction of annual minimum guarantee charges and maximum demand charges. Accordingly, it made two separate claims in respect of two financial years claming relief under cl.(13) of the High Tension agreement. The two claim applications made on behalf of the petitioner on Dec. 4, 1984 have been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ application. It appears from the said Annexure-4 that in the column provided therefor it was stated that the petitioner had been prevented from using electricity from 17-2-1984 to 29-10-1984 due mill for Labour unrest." In Col.7(b)of the prescribed form for making claim. "strike" was mentioned as the clause which prevented the petitioner from receiving or using electrical energy supplied by the Board. In col.7(a) of the claim relating to the period April, 1984 to November, 1984, it has been stated that the petitioner was "prevented from using electrical energy from 17-2-1984 to 29-10-1984 due to closure of the mill for "Labour unrest". But again in Cl.7(a) of the pro forma "strike'' has been shown to be the cause owing to which the petitioner was prevented from receiving or using electrical energy supplied by the Board.