Holding

The employee is bound by the regulations fixing the retirement age at 58 years, and his retirement upon attaining that age is valid.

Summary

The second respondent, a former coolie of the Kanpur Electricity Supply Corporation, was retired on 31 March 1979 upon attaining the age of 58. He claimed the retirement was invalid because the original service conditions, under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, did not prescribe an age of superannuation and the management had assured him that the old conditions would continue. The Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board had, however, framed regulations under section 79C of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 fixing the retirement age at 58 and had notified these regulations under section 13B of the Standing Orders Act. The Supreme Court held that once such regulations are notified, they have statutory force and override the earlier standing orders, binding the employee. Consequently, the retirement was deemed lawful. The Court allowed the appeal, upholding the retirement order and awarding nominal costs to the appellant.

Issues considered

The applicability of regulations framed under s.79C of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 to employees originally covered by the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.
Whether the employee was bound by the notified retirement age of 58 despite prior assurances of no retirement age.
The effect of government notification under s.13B of the Standing Orders Act on the validity of the Board's regulations.

Legislation cited

Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948s. 79C
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946s. 13B, s. 5

Subjects

retirement agestanding orderselectricity board regulationssuperannuationservice conditionsnotificationspecial law

Judgment

!282 •

U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY. BOARD AND ANOTHER
A
v

THE LABOUR COURT (I) l:J.P., KANPUR AND OTHERS
•
B
October 6, 1983 ..
(D. A. DESAI, 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.]

Industrial Employment {Standing Orders) Act; 1946-Workme; employed
'
· by a company-No age of retirement fixed-Company naliona/istd-Workmen

..
opted·to serve-Service regulations fran1ed and notified-Assurance by manage·
c ment tha,t old service conditions would apply to company emp!oye'es-fV/Jether
vaiid-Work1nen, whet~er bound.by ne~ regu/a(ions.
:..
The respondent·workman entered service as a coolie in 1945 undct the
K.anpur ElectricitY SuppJy Corporatioh Limited. When the time the company
bad-no.rules as tO the age of retireme'nt for its employees and therefore -his
date of birth was not entered in the service card. When the Corporation was
D nationalised the new managem'ent, without asking him. as to his date of birth,
Showed his age as 20 years 9 month~. From tile vjllage records it was found
that he was born.. On 24.6.1924. Meanwhile, the new management got the
Standing Orders certified without making any provision for the. age of retire·
rnent. When the Electricity Board constituted under -the Electricity (Supply)
Act, 19~8. took over· the n1anagemcnt of the Ad1ninistration in .1949 it \\'as
made clear that conditions· of service of work1nen would not be adversely
E affected.. · But on 31st January, 1979 the workman was retired from service on
the ground that he had completed 58 years,of age. The workn1an complained

F
that he was retire4 in contravention of i1is conditions of serVice according to
which there was no age of retirement.

The labour court held that even after framing the fcgulations under
section 79C of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, fixing the age of retirement
at 58 3.nd· notifying then1 under section 13B of the Industrial Employment
-
(Standing Orders) ~ct, "1946, the new management made it cleilr to the
employee that old service conditions of the employees wouldA contintie to
operate and that a similar assurance was .,given to the respondent .in Y{riting
that the new regulations would not appl.Y to hi~. In this view the respondent's
retirement was held to be invali.d. ,,
G
AUowing the appeal.
• •
HELD: The workman is bound by the regu]atior:is fixing the age of
retirement at 58 and therefore his rCtiremen.t on attaining the age of superan-
nuation was correct. [287 CJ ·

. The Industrial En1ptoyn1ent (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 is a special law
in regarcPto matters e~umerated in the schedule. The regu}ations n1ade by the
Electricity Board with respect to _an)' of tho~e ma tiers are of no C(ffect unless
,r
U.P.S.E. BOARD LABOUR COURT (Varadarajan, J.) • 283
• f

they are either notified by the Government under section 13B or certified by
the Certifying Officer under section 5 of the Standing Orders Act.· In regard
to matters in respect of which regulations made_ by the Board have ·not been
notified by the Governor or in respect of.which no regulations had been m\de
by the Board. the Standing OrderS Act would continue to apply. Since, in the
instant case, the regulations framed by the Board with regard to the age of
retirement under seCtion 79C have been notified by the Government under
section 13B of the Stallding Orders Act, the respondent is bound by those
regulations and his retirement on attain,ing the age of 58 years was correct. B
- [286 F-H; 287 A;BJ

- -~
U.P. State Electric#y· Board and others v, Hari Shanker Jain and·'others,
[1979] 1 S.C.R. 355, applied. -

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3549 (NL)
of 1982.
c
Appeal by Special leave against the Award passed by the
Labour Court (I) Kanpur dated 16th Dece!Jlber~ 1980 in Adjudi>ation
case No. 8 of 1980.
D
S. Markandeya for the AppHlants.
Hari Swqrup, Manoj Swarup and ·Ms. Lalita Kohli for the
"111 Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E

.. VARADAR•JAN, J. This t\ipeal by special leave is directed
_against the award of the Labour Court, Kanpur in Adjudiction Case
No. 8 of 1980 holding that the retirement of the second respondent
Jag Dutt from 31.3.f979 is unjustifiable and directing his reinstate·
ment with back wages with a right to work so long as he is physically
F
fit.

The second respondent entered service as a coolie on I L4.1945
under the then Kanpur Electricity Supply Corporation Limited. No
date of birth was mentioned in his ·service card and there was no
·age of retirement for employees in that concern. That establishment G
was nationalised on 15.9.1947 and thereafter it became a department
of the Government Of Uttar Pradesh. The i:tew management Kanpur
Electricity Supply Administration filled up the second respondent's age
as 20 years 9 months without asking him for any certificate regarding
his date of birth. His date of birth is 24.6.1924_ and an entry about R
his date of birth has been made in the Police Station, Chawani Basti
at the instance of the Chowkidar of that village. The new manage-
ment got its standing orders certified wi\hqut makih!l any -provis\011
284 • SUPUMB COURT REPORTS• [1984] 1 s.c.R.

for age of retirement. The State Government made it clear that the
A workmen to whom the Industrial· Employment (Standing Order•)
Act! 1946 applied would not be governed by the Civil Service
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. The Electricity
Board . constituted under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948
took over the workmen of' the erstwhile Kanpur Electricity
B Supply Admmistration from 1.4 ..1949 making it clear that their
· service conditions will not be adversely affected. That poaition
regarding the service conditions of the employee• was reiterated in
Government Order No. 3679-E/71-21-PB dated 1.4.1971 and th•
Electricity Department's Chief Engineer's letter dated 2.3.1972. The
initial condition was that the second respondent should work so Ion&
c as he was physically fit to work without any age of retirement.
However, the Kanpur ElectricitySupply Administration retired the
second respondent from 31.3.1979 on the ground that he has comple-
ted '58 years. This retirelllJ'rit is invalid for two reasons, namely tliat
his date of birth is 24.6.1924 and that there is. no . age of retirement
D so far as employees like the secopd respondent who had joined
service under the Kanpur Electricity Supply Corporation Limited are
concerned.. The new management had. allowed 19 named workmen
to retire when they were 60 to 75 years old. The second respondent
has thus been retired not only before he completed 5S years, his date·
of birth being 24.6.1924 but also in contravention of his conditions
E .of service, according to ·which there is no age of retirement. This was
-- the second respondent's case b.cfore !tie Labour Cciurt. ·

The defence of the appellant-management was that though
~hen the Electricity Board was constituted and the management of
the Kanpur Electricity Supply Administration was taken over in· 1948·
no age of retirement was prescribed for the employees the Electricity
-
·Board framed regulations under s.79C of the Electricity (Supply) .>
Act, 1948 subsequently prescribing the age of retirement as 58 years . ~
and 60 years and the second respondent was retired on 31.3.1979
under those regulations. it is open in law for the Electricity Board to
G frame regulations prescribing the age of retirement of its employees
even· where initally there was no age of retirement, as has beeu held by
the Allahabad High Court and this Court. The second respondent's
retirement is valid and cannot be set aside.

B The Labour Court found that the. second respondent joined
service as a cooly under the Kanpur Electricity Supply Corporation
Limited on 11.5.1945 and he became. the State Government's
~mployee oo. 16.9.1947 w]l,en ~at establishment was taken over by
•

U.P.S.E. B~ARD v.·LABOUR COURT (Var~arajan, .T.) -'2ss
-Kanpur. Electricity Supply Administraiion and the employees · '
of . that Administration . became the . employees of the. State - : A :
Elettricity Board 'when it ·took --over that . Undertaking- after
.. -

!hat Board was constituted - cin 1.4.1959. --It was not disputed that •
by the Regulations framed under s. 79C of the Electricity (Supply)
age
Act, 1948, of retirement fued at. 58 or _60 years and that those
Regtlations .were notified on 28.5.1972 under-. s. 138B of the Indus- - _. l3
·trial -Employment (Standing_ Orders) Act, 1946c __ But: the La~our
Court found that even after the. publication of those Regulations
the. -new.management made it clear to the employees by _Govern-· _
- ·_ ment's Order No. 3679-E/71·23-PB dated - 1.7.1979 that even after -
- - absorption of the employees their old. conditions of service would
.'r continue in the same wai and that a _similar assurance• had been•_ ·c -
' given to the second respondent by tho documents marked as ·Ex.B-9
to B-15 that the Regulations would not apply to him '.and he could -
-work so long as he .was physically .fit without any age - of reiirement..
Jn this view the Labour Court held · that the second repondent's
. retirement from 31.3.1979 inspite of the fact, that he is physically
fit is ·invalid in law and it accordingly allowed the -s·cc6nd reipon-- · D
dent's claim as menti<?ned -above. ·- · ·

-The. Labour Court ~s not recorded any finding: regarding :the .
.·~· '.second respondent's ac~ual date of birth.• In this Court.no argument -
was·advanced by the learned counsel on either side on that question.
The only point _argued before this -Court by Mr. S.·Markendeya;
E
learned counsel for the_ appellants and Mr. Hari Swarup, learned
Senior Counsel appeaiing for, thcsecond respondent was as fo the .-
-binding natllre of the Regulations framed by the Electricity Board·
under s.79C of theEleciricity (Supply) Act, 1948 fiixing age of reiire-
-ment as 58 years in _regard to workmen like the _second· respondent F
who were originally_ employees· of the' Kanpur Electricity Supply •
·Corporation Limited: By· Order dated 3.10.1978 of the General
- Manager of the U.P. State Electricity Board i_n the department of
_ Kanpur Electricity Supply Adminisfration eleven employees including,
-·the second respondent were retired'o11 attaining the age of .superan-
. nuation _with effect from 31.3.- 1979 on the basis that according to the
.G
- .Board's records they were completing 58 years on that date.· There
is no dispute tha\ the Board.has framed Regulations under s.79C of ·
· : the Electricity_ (Supply) Act, 1948 fixing· the' age of retirement "of
· ·employees like ihe secon.d respondent at 58 years and_ that the Regu- ·
lations have been notified under s.l3B of the Industrial Employment -
H
(Standing Orders) Act, 1946._ Mr. Hari Swarup admitted before us
that the Regulations have statutory force. T)ie Member S~cretary of _
- '
• •

~86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984] f s.C.Jl..

the U.P. State Electricity Board had informed the government emp-
A loyees whose Services had been lent to the Board on deputation that
their salary, allownces and other conditions of service shall be gove-rn
ed by Regulations made by the Board under s. 79C of the Electricity
(Supply) Act, 1948 from time to time. It is not disputed that th~
second respondent had thereafter exercised his option .to serve in the .
B U.P. State Electricity Board. The second respondent is, therefore,
bound by the Regulation by which the age of retirement has been
fixed in regard to employees like him at 58 years. A similar ques-
tion arose before a Diviaion Bench of the Allahabad High Court in
Bhat Lal and·ano1her v. 'Superintending Engineer, Allahabad(!) where
it has been held as follows :
c
"Once the regulations framed under s. 79(c) of the
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 have been notified by the
State Government under s.13-1,l of the Industrial Employ-
•
ment (Standing Orders) A~ the standing orders framed
by the erstwhile licence,to .the~extent they concerned the
D subject qealt with by the regulations became ineffective
and inoperative and that in respect of .. uch matter, the
right of the parties would be governed only by the regula-
tion so notified". In the circumstances even if it ~e a fact
that the standing orders framed by the erstwhile licencee
E contained a clause specifying an age higher then 58 years, •
· as age of superannuation for its employees, the employee
. w.ould none-the-less, as provided in the notified regula-
tion, be superannuated at"the age o.f 58 years.''

A similar question• arose b~fore .thiS Court in U.P. Stott
F Electricity 'Board and others v. Hori Shanker Jain and others(') to whiCh
- two of us were parties. There it has been held that the Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, !946(is'a special Jaw in. regard
to the matters enumerated in the schedule and the regulations made
by the El°"tricity Board with respect to any of those matters a~e of -~
G no effect unless such regulations are either notified hy the Govern-
.men! under s. !3B or certified by the Certifying Officer under s; 5 of
the .Industrial Employme~t (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. In regard to
matters in respect of which regulations made· by the Board have not
been notified by the Governor or in respect of which no regulatioµs
have been made by the Board, the Industrial Employment (Standing

· (l)"l 1979 Labour and Industrial Cases 110.
~
. ..
t (2) (1979] l~S.C.R. 3$~.
ti.P.S.E. BOARD v. LABOUR coui.u (Ji'araJaraj1111, J.) 281
'
Orders) Act shall continue to apply. In that case the regulation
made by the Board with regard to the age of superannuation had A
been duly notified by the Government and it has been held that the
,.,
.. regulation had effect notwithstanding the fact that it was a matter
which could be the subject matter of standing orders the Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and that the respondents
in that appeal had been properly retired when they attained the age
B
of 58 years. In view of th.e admitted fact that the regulations framed .
by the Board under s.79C of the Electricity (Supply)Act, 1948 have
been notified. by the Government under s. 13B of the Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 we hold that .the second
respondent is bound by those regulations in which the age of retire-
ment has bean admittedly fixed at 58 years and that he has no reason c
to complain against his retirement on that basis with effect from
31.3.1979. The appeaJ.is accordingly allowed and the order of the
a?pellant retiring the second respondent with effect from 31.3.1979 is
upheld. It is, however, made clear •that the second resp<Jlldent sliall
not be liable to refµnd any amount paid to him under ortlers of the
Court pending these proceedings and that he is entitled to draw the
D
sum of Rs. 2,000 which ha• been directed to be deposited towards
his costs in this appeal.

T .- P.B.R. Appear allowed.
.'

-

•