1980 (4) TMI 308 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Electricity Board's Regulations on Employee Disciplinary Actions

The Supreme Court interpreted Sections 79(c) and 79(k) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 in a case involving regulations by the U.P. State Electricity ... - Issues:Interpretation of Section 79(k) and Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 in relation to regulations framed by the U.P. State Electricity Board for appointment, disciplinary action, and termination of employees.Analysis:The Supreme Court addressed two questions of fact and law in the appeals. The Attorney-General focused on the correct construction of Section 79(k) read with Section 15 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, and the validity of regulations framed by the U.P. State Electricity Board on December 18, 1970. The regulation in question outlined the appointment process, appointing authorities, disciplinary actions, and appeal procedures. The High Court had previously struck down the regulation, citing lack of delegation power by the Board. However, the Supreme Court delved into the interpretation of Section 79(c) and Section 79(k) of the Act to determine the Board's authority to make such regulations.The Court highlighted that Section 79(k) is a residuary provision allowing the Board to make regulations on matters arising from its functions under the Act. On the other hand, Section 79(c) specifically deals with the duties, salaries, allowances, and conditions of service of the Board's officers and employees. The Court emphasized that Section 79(k) empowers the Board to make regulations regarding termination of service and disciplinary actions concerning its employees. This power is implied from Section 15, which grants the Board the authority to appoint officers and employees necessary for its functions.The Court rejected the High Court's view that the regulation was invalid, emphasizing the practicality of the situation. Considering the substantial number of employees under the Electricity Board, it would be impractical for the Board to handle all disciplinary actions centrally. Therefore, the Court held that the Board was competent to make the regulation in question. However, the Court, taking into account the specific circumstances, agreed to uphold the reinstatement of the employees as per the Attorney-General's suggestion. Consequently, the appeal was allowed partially concerning the regulation's validity but dismissed regarding the factual conclusion, with no order as to costs.