2004 (3) TMI 742 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds special law over general regulations in employment dispute

M.P. VIDYUT KARAMCHARI SANGH Versus M.P. ELECTRICITY BOARD

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment. It held that regulations under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, ... Whether an agreement despite expiry would prevail over a regulation made under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') as regard the age of superannuation of an employee of the Respondent-Board? Issues:1. Whether the regulations made under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 would prevail over the Standing Order framed under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961.2. Whether the regulation dated 19.10.1963 issued by the Board adopting fundamental and supplementary rules for its employees, except those in work-charged establishments, and published in the gazette on 26.12.2000, excludes the application of the 1961 Act by reason of Section 2(2) thereof.3. Whether the respondent Board acted illegally and without jurisdiction in issuing the notification dated 26.12.2000 reducing the age of Class III employees to 58 years.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Prevalence of Regulations under Section 79(c) over Standing Orders:The Supreme Court held that the regulations made under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 do not automatically prevail over the Standing Orders framed under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961. The Court emphasized that the 1961 Act, being a special law, would prevail over the general provisions of the regulations framed under Section 79(c). This is supported by the maxim 'generalia specialibus non derogant' (general provisions do not derogate from special provisions). The Court cited the case of U.P. State Electricity Board vs. Hari Shankar Jain, where it was held that the regulations made by the Electricity Board with respect to matters enumerated in the Schedule of the Standing Orders Act are of no effect unless notified by the Government or certified by the certifying officer.2. Exclusion of the 1961 Act by Regulation and Notification:The Court found that the Board had adopted the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules, which were not inherently applicable to its employees, and thus required a notification under Section 2(2) of the 1961 Act to exclude the application of the Act. Since the State Government did not issue any such notification, the provisions of the 1961 Act continued to apply to the employees of the Board. The Court reiterated that the regulations framed by the Board under Section 79(c) are general provisions, and the specific legislative competence granted to the State to regulate industrial relations and conditions of service would prevail.3. Legality and Jurisdiction of the Notification Reducing Retirement Age:The Court upheld the validity of the Board's notification dated 26.12.2000, which reduced the age of superannuation of its employees to 58 years. The Court noted that the agreement dated 10.6.1996, which had set the retirement age at par with Central Government employees (60 years), expired on 31.3.1999. Under Section 99 of the 1960 Act, the agreement ceased to have effect on the specified date, and no notice was required for its termination. The Court also highlighted that the Board had the power to make regulations regarding the conditions of service of its employees under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, and such regulations would prevail in the absence of any valid law to the contrary. The alteration in the age of retirement was deemed a matter of executive policy, permissible for sufficient and cogent reasons.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment. It concluded that the regulations made under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 do not override the specific provisions of the 1961 Act in the absence of a notification excluding the application of the 1961 Act. The Board's notification reducing the retirement age to 58 years was held to be valid and within its jurisdiction.