Special law prevails over general service rules, and expired settlements cannot block statutory superannuation regulations.

Special State industrial legislation with Presidential assent prevailed over the Board's general service regulations where both covered the same field, so the standing orders law governed to the extent of conflict. A Board notification adopting service rules did not exclude application of the 1961 Act because exclusion under Section 2(2) required a State Government notification in the Official Gazette; in its absence, the Act continued to apply. After the settlement enhancing retirement age expired by its own terms, the Board could enforce its statutory regulation fixing superannuation at 58 years, and the notification reducing the age was not illegal or without jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether regulations made under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 prevailed over the standing orders framed under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961. (ii) Whether the Board's notification adopting service rules excluded the application of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961 under Section 2(2). (iii) Whether the Board acted illegally and without jurisdiction in issuing the notification reducing the age of superannuation of Class III employees to 58 years.

Issue (i): Whether regulations made under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 prevailed over the standing orders framed under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961.

Analysis: The two enactments operated in different fields. The Electricity (Supply) Act conferred a general power on the Board to frame service regulations, whereas the State legislation specifically governed industrial relations and conditions of employment. Where both enactments covered the same subject, the special State law, having Presidential assent, prevailed over the general regulations of the Board. The principle that a special law overrides a general law was applied.

Conclusion: The standing orders law prevailed over the Board's regulations to the extent of any conflict.

Issue (ii): Whether the Board's notification adopting service rules excluded the application of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961 under Section 2(2).

Analysis: Exclusion under Section 2(2) required a notification by the State Government in the Official Gazette. The Board's own adoption of service rules could not substitute for the statutory notification contemplated by the Act. In the absence of such State Government notification, the Act continued to apply to the Board's employees.

Conclusion: The application of the 1961 Act was not excluded.

Issue (iii): Whether the Board acted illegally and without jurisdiction in issuing the notification reducing the age of superannuation of Class III employees to 58 years.

Analysis: The settlement enhancing retirement age had expired on the date specified in it, and Section 99 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 made such expiry effective automatically. The agreement was not a law and could not override the Board's statutory power to regulate service conditions. Once the earlier settlement ceased to operate, the Board was entitled to act under its regulation fixing superannuation at 58 years.

Conclusion: The notification reducing the age of superannuation was not illegal or without jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the challenged notification was sustained and the governing service position reverted to the Board's statutory regulation after expiry of the settlement.

Ratio Decidendi: A special industrial law with Presidential assent prevails over general service regulations, but once a registered settlement expires on the date specified in it, the employer may lawfully enforce the statutory service regulation in the absence of a subsisting agreement having the force of law.

---