BRIJ LAL Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these writ petitions raise common question for consideration and, therefore, they are disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) THE petitioners are the employees of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) which is an Electricity Board established under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948,. The Government of India by it resolution dated 20th May, 1966, had constituted a General Wage Board for electricity undertakings for evolving a wage structure, standardisation of nomenclatures and job descriptions. The recommendations of the said Wage Board were accepted by the Government of India in July, 1970 and there after, the Prantiya Vidhyut Mandal Mazdoor Federation, which is a recognised trade union of the employees of she respondent Board, presented a demand before the Labour Department of the Government of Rajasthan for the implementation of the recommendations of the Wage Board by the respondent Board While the said industrial dispute between management of the respondent Board and its employees was pending before the Conciliation Officer, a settlement was arrived at between the management of the respondent Board and the aforesaid trade union on 22nd Feb., 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the 'First Settlement') whereby, it was agreed that the existing scales of pay of various categories of posts would be revised with effect from 1st April, 1969 in accordance with the pay scales set out in Annexure(A) to the settlement Annexure (A) to the settlement prescribed six pay scales for the various categories of the employees of the respondent Board. pay scale No. 2 was 80 -5 110 -6 152 -7 -194 and Pay scale No. 3 was 126 -8 -150 -10 -250. In the schedule to Annexures (A) the various posts falling under each of the aforesaid scales of pay have been set out. The post of Meter Reader/ Checker was placed under Pay scale No. 3 i e. 126 250 In accordance with the just Settlement, the respondent Board issued a notification dated 22nd March 1972, revising the pay scales of its employees with effect from 1st April, 1, 1969.' Under the said notification Meter Reader/Checkers were placed in pay scale No. 3, i e. 126 -250 Subsequently, on 2nd December, 1972, another agreement, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Second Settlement') was entered into by the management of the respondent Board and the Prantiya Viohyut Mardal Mezdoor Federation. In the Second Settlement it is stated that some anomalies and difficulties had cropped -up during the implementation of the agreements dated 26th January, 1970, 28th April, 1971 and 20th July, 1972 and that it was felt desirable to remove the anomalies and to clarify the point; by mutual negotiations. By the Second Settlement certain modifications were made in the First Settlement. One such modification was that the entry No. 21 under Pay Scale No. 3 -Technical in the Schedule to Annexure (A) of she First Settlement relating to Meter Reader/Checker was modified to read as 'Meter Reader -I/ Meter Checker I Another modification that was made by the Second Settlement in the First Settlement was that a new entry No. 7 Meter reader -II/Meter Checker II' was inserted under pay scale No. 2 Technical in the Schedule to annexure (A) and below Pay Scale No. 2 the following note was note was inserted: Meter Reader -II /Meter Checker -II appointed/fixed/promoted adjustero on or before 31 -3 - 1968 will be fixed in pay scale No. 3 instead of pay scale No. 2

(3.) THE validity of the notification dated 6th December, 1972 and the Second Settlement is challenged by the petitioners in these writ petitions on the following grounds: (i) On 2nd December, 1972, the date on which the Second Settlement was entered into, the First Settlement was in operation and it was not competent for the respondent Board to enter into the Second Settlement so as to take away the rights which have been conferred on the work man under the First Settlement. The Second Settlement which has the effect of reducing the wages of the workmen fixed under at the earlier Settlement which is in operation is not permissible under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). (ii) Even assuming that a Second Settlement is permissible under the provisions of the Act the Second Settlement and notification dated 6th December, 1972 are unconstitutional being violative of fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 31(2) of the Constitution in as much as a result of the second settlement, the respondent Board was acquiring the property of the petitioners viz., their wages, without payment of any compensation. (iii) The Second Settlement and the notification dated 6th December 1972 arbitrarily divide Meter Readers into two classes in the matter of fixation of their pay on the basis of the date of appointment and that such a classification has no rational basis and, therefore, the second settlement and the notification are violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (iv) Under the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948, the respondent Board can prescribe conditions of service of its employees by framing regulations under Section 79(c) of the said Act. The power conferred on respondent Board under the aforesaid provisions does not empower the Board to frame regulations having retrospective effect. The impugned notification dated 6th December, 1972 which is in the nature of a regulation laying down the conditions of service of the employees is illegal in as much as it has been given retrospective effect so as to reduce the wages of the employees who were working as Meter Readers prior to the issue of the said notification.