2020 (7) TMI 820 - HC - Indian Laws

Court sets aside judgment, rules on rights under industrial settlement over repealed regulations.

Kerala State Electricity Board Versus Baiju Chandran

The court allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. It held that the rights of the respondent could only be considered ... Compassionate appointment or not - claim of the writ petitioner was rejected on the ground that only the dependants of the Part-Time Contingent Employees, who die before attaining the age of 60 years are eligible to be considered for compassionate appointment in terms of the industrial settlement entered into between the Kerala State Electricity Board and its employees, in 2007 - HELD THAT:- It is settled law that repeal of the Principal Act will result in the repeal of subordinate legislation framed under the provisions of the repealed enactment unless the same was specifically saved by the repeal and saving clause. We cannot, in S. 185, see any saving clause which protects Ext. P2 Regulation or gives life to Ext. P2 regulation de hors the repeal of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 - The provisions of sub-section (2), obviously cannot apply to save Ext. P.2 Regulations, in the manner suggested by the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner as, obviously, the said provision can apply only to past actions under any of the repealed enactments. A reading of S. 185(2)(a), suggests that things, which have already been done will be saved insofar as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. We accept the contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that there is nothing contrary to the provisions contained in Ext. P2 in the Electricity Act, 2003. However, the lack of any inconsistency with the provisions of the 2003 Act cannot offer any protection, insofar as the writ petitioner is concerned, on account of the fact that it is not his case that any action had been taken in terms of Ext. P2 Regulation prior to the repeal of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. In fact, as already noticed, the mother of the writ petitioner under whom he claims appointment under the dying-in-harness Scheme passed away only on 21.3.2011 on which date Ext. P2 Regulation was clearly not in force on account of the repeal provision in S. 185(1) - In the absence of any statutory regulation, the provisions of the long term settlement will apply. Sub-section (5) of S. 185, only makes it clear that the specific mention and saving of certain enumerated provisions/rules in sub-section (2) does did not mean that the effect of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was inapplicable in respect of provisions not so enumerated. The right of the 1st respondent (if any) can be considered only in terms of the relevant provisions of the industrial settlement in force and not in accordance with the provisions - Appeal allowed. Issues:1. Conflict between industrial settlement and statutory regulations for compassionate appointment.2. Effect of repeal of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 on Ext. P2 Regulations.3. Interpretation of Section 185 of the Electricity Act, 2003 regarding saving provisions.4. Applicability of General Clauses Act, 1897 in the context of repealed statutes and subordinate legislation.Issue 1:The case involved a conflict between the industrial settlement and statutory regulations regarding compassionate appointment for dependants of Part-Time Contingent Employees. The writ petitioner argued that the settlement could not override statutory regulations in determining eligibility under the dying-in-harness Scheme. The learned Single Judge ruled in favor of the writ petitioner based on a previous judgment.Issue 2:The main contention revolved around the effect of the repeal of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 on Ext. P2 Regulations. The appellant argued that the statutory scheme relied upon by the petitioner was no longer in force due to the repeal provision in the Electricity Act, 2003. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 185 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and concluded that Ext. P2 Regulations were not saved by the repeal clause.Issue 3:The interpretation of Section 185 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was crucial in determining the applicability of Ext. P2 Regulations post-repeal. The court examined the saving provisions under S. 185(2)(a) and concluded that the regulations framed under the repealed enactment could not be deemed to have been done under the corresponding provisions of the new Act.Issue 4:The applicability of the General Clauses Act, 1897 in the context of repealed statutes and subordinate legislation was also discussed. The court analyzed the provisions of S. 6 of the General Clauses Act and concluded that it could not aid the writ petitioner in this case. The court also rejected arguments regarding the terms of the settlement no longer being in force and the relevance of S. 3(51) of the General Clauses Act.In conclusion, the court allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. It held that the rights of the respondent could only be considered in accordance with the relevant provisions of the industrial settlement in force, not Ext. P2 Regulations, which were no longer in effect due to the repeal of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.