Court sets aside judgment, rules on rights under industrial settlement over repealed regulations.

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 P2 Regulations, which were no longer in effect due to the repeal of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.

---

---

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 Applicability of General Clauses Act, 1897 in the context of repealed statutes and subordinate legislation.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 The appellant argued that the statutory scheme relied upon by the petitioner was no longer in force due to the repeal provision in the Electricity Act, 2003.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 The court examined the saving provisions under S. 185(2)(a) and concluded that the regulations framed under the repealed enactment could not be deemed to have been done under the corresponding provisions of the new Act.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The applicability of the General Clauses Act, 1897 in the context of repealed statutes and subordinate legislation was also discussed.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.

---