{"id":21137,"date":"2004-03-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-03-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-vidyut-karamchari-sangh-vs-m-p-electricity-board-on-18-march-2004"},"modified":"2016-02-09T09:40:38","modified_gmt":"2016-02-09T04:10:38","slug":"m-p-vidyut-karamchari-sangh-vs-m-p-electricity-board-on-18-march-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-vidyut-karamchari-sangh-vs-m-p-electricity-board-on-18-march-2004","title":{"rendered":"M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs M.P. Electricity Board on 18 March, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs M.P. Electricity Board on 18 March, 2004<\/div>\n
Author: S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: Cji, S.B. Sinha, S.H. Kapadia.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2510 of 2002\n\nPETITIONER:\nM.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM.P. Electricity Board\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 18\/03\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nCJI, S.B. Sinha & S.H. Kapadia.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
S.B. SINHA, J :\n<\/p>\n
Introduction :\n<\/p>\n
Whether an agreement despite expiry would prevail over a regulation
\nmade under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (for short
\n‘the Act’) as regard the age of superannuation of an employee of the
\nRespondent-Board is the primal question involved in this appeal which
\narises out of a judgment and order dated 11.9.2001 passed by the High Court
\nof Judicature of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in L.P.A. No. 34 of 2001.\n<\/p>\n
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe appellant is a registered Union of the employees of the Madhya
\nPradesh State Electricity Board (for short ‘the Board’).  The erstwhile
\nElectricity Board framed regulations in the year 1952 under Section 79(c) of
\nthe Act known as General Service Conditions of Board Servants.  In the year
\n1957, the respondent-Board came into existence on re-organisation of the
\nState.\n<\/p>\n
The State of Madhya Pradesh enacted the Madhya Pradesh Industrial
\nRelations Act, 1960 (for short ‘the 1960 Act’) with a view to regulate the
\nrelations of employers and employees in certain matters, to make provisions
\nfor settlement of industrial disputes and to provide for matters connected
\ntherewith.  In the year 1961, the State of Madhya Pradesh also enacted
\nMadhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961 (for
\nshort ‘the 1961 Act’) to provide for rules defining with sufficient precision
\nof certain matters relating to the conditions of employment of employees in
\nthe State of Madhya pradesh.  The Schedule appended to the 1961 Act
\nprovided for the standard standing orders and item No. XV thereof relates to
\n‘age of retirement’.\n<\/p>\n
 \tOn or about 19.10.1963, the Board purported to have adopted
\nfundamental rules, supplementary rules and other service conditions as in
\nforce in Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, Civil
\nServices (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules.  The said rules,
\nhowever, had no application as regard work-charged employees.  On or
\nabout 16.9.1976 by a notification issued under Section 79(c) of the Act, the
\nBoard adopted Madhya Pradesh Shasakiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki Ayu)
\nSanshodhan Adhiniyam, 1972 relating to the retirement age of government
\nemployees under FR 56(3) prescribing 58 years as the age of
\nsuperannuation.  It is not in dispute that the parties hereto entered into an
\nagreement on or about 10.6.1996 whereby and whereunder the age of
\nsuperannuation of the employees was made at par with the employees of the
\nCentral Government as other fringe benefits were to be the same as might be
\naccepted by the Central Government while enforcing the Report of the Fifth
\nPay Commission.  The Central Government while accepting the
\nrecommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission fixed 60 years as the age of
\nsuperannuation of its employees.  In the said agreement, it was stipulated  :\n<\/p>\n
“(S) It has been further agreed that the following
\nfringe benefits shall be regulated as per Vth Pay
\nCommission Report after its adoption by Central
\nGovernment.\n<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
9. Age of retirement.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe said agreement was registered in terms of Section 33 of the 1960
\nAct.  The Board Thereafter issued a notification dated 22.5.1998 adopting
\nthe notification issued by the Central Government dated 13.5.1998 as a
\nresult whereof the age of retirement of the officers and employees of the
\nrespondent Board was enhanced to 60 years.  The said order came into force
\nwith effect from 13.5.1998.  By reason of the impugned notification dated
\n26.12.2000, the Board reduced the age of superannuation of its employees,
\nexcept class IV employees, to 58 years.  Questioning the said notification,
\nthe appellant herein filed a  writ petition before the High Court of Judicature
\nof Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur which was marked as Writ Petition No. 7255
\nof 2000.  The said writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of
\nthe High Court whereagainst the appellant herein preferred a Letters Patent
\nAppeal marked as Letters Patent Appeal No. 34 of 2001.  By reason of the
\nimpugned judgment dated 11.9.2001, the Division Bench dismissed the said
\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n
 HIGH COURT JUDGMENT:\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe Division Bench of the High Court in its judgment held:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tAs notification was not published under Section 2(2) of the 1961
\nAct by the State Government in the official gazette, the Act would
\napply to the parties to the lis.  However, as the said notification has
\nbeen published on 26.12.2000,  it became  a part of the Board’s
\nregulations and as such the conditions of service of the employees
\nof the Board would be governed thereby.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\t Rule 14-A was brought into animation in the year 1973 but it was
\nbrought into existence the amendment after a period of 8 years in
\nthe year 1981.  The intention is writ large that proviso carves out
\nan exception to enable the employer granting freedom,
\nindependence and liberty to enter into an agreement\/settlement to
\nconfer more benefit to an employee which is in tune with the
\nIndustrial Law.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tAs the Board is empowered to  make regulation in exercise of its
\npower under Section 79(c) of the Act, it is also entitled to issue
\nadministrative instructions in absence of the regulation holding the
\nfield.  As after 1984 the Board could not have passed any
\nadministrative order without amending the regulation and having
\nregard to the fact that the relevant notifications were not published
\nin the official gazettee, they would be non est in law.  As by reason
\nof the notification dated 14.7.2000, the Board had adopted the
\nregulations made in the year 1963, subsequent amendments which
\nhad taken place in the regulations and supplementary rules
\nincreasing the age of superannuation to 60 years will have no
\neffect.  The submissions of the appellant to the effect that the
\nsettlement\/ agreement should be construed with reference to a
\nletter dated 22.10.1999 issued by the Secretary of the Board to the
\nFederation being  unpragmatic cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
SUBMISSIONS:\n<\/p>\n
 \tDr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nappellant would submit that the High Court went wrong in passing the
\nimpugned judgment insofar as it failed to take into consideration that the
\nregulations made under the Electricity (Supply) Act being a general law and
\nthe terms and conditions laid down under the Certified Standing Order being
\na special law, the latter shall prevail over the former.  Strong reliance in this
\nbehalf has been placed on The U.P. State Electricity Board and Another Vs.
\nHari Shankar Jain and Others [(1978) 4 SCC 16].\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe learned counsel would contend that a manifest error has been
\ncommitted by the Division Bench of the High Court insofar as it despite
\nhaving held that a notification issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh was
\nnecessary to exclude the application of the Standing Order in terms of
\nSection 2(2) of the 1961 Act, relying on or on the basis of the notification
\nissued by the respondent Board although the same was  issued by the Board
\nonly and not by the State Government under Section 2(2) of the 1961 Act.\n<\/p>\n
 \tDr. Dhawan would submit that the regulations framed by the Board in
\nin the year 1976 applying the fundamental and supplementary rules could
\nnot have excluded the application of the Standing Order as the same had
\nbeen published in the official Gazette by the Board in the year 2000 only and
\nthat too by the Board and not by the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
Section 79(c) of the Act, Dr. Dhawan would contend, is merely
\nimplemental  in nature and do not have the character of  substantive law and
\nin that view of the matter the settlement arrived at by the parties in terms of
\nSections 31 and 33 of the Industrial Relations Act would prevail thereover.
\nDespite expiry of the said settlement, Dr. Dhawan would urge, the
\nagreement would continue to operate unless the same is terminated by a
\nnotice and in that view of the matter no notification altering the terms and
\nconditions of service could be validly issued in derogation of the terms of
\nthe said agreement having regard to the provisions contained in Rule 14A of
\nthe Rules.\n<\/p>\n
 \tMr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nrespondent, on the other hand, would submit that the decision of this Court
\nin Hari Shankar Jain (supra) cannot be said to have laid down good law
\ninasmuch as therein it had not been considered that the Electricity (Supply)
\nAct, 1948 is a law relatable to Entry 38 of List III of Constitution of India;
\nand the 1960 Act and the 1961 Act having been made in terms of Entries 22,
\n23 and 24 of List III, Article 254 (2) of the Constitution of India would not
\nhave any application and in that view of the matter the agreement dated
\n10.6.1960 cannot override the statutory power conferred upon the Board
\nunder Section 79 (c) of the Act in terms whereof the Board can make
\nregulations laying down duties of its officers and other employees and fixing
\ntheir salaries, allowances and other conditions of service.\n<\/p>\n
 \tFor enforcing the 1963 Regulations, Mr. Rao would urge,  there was
\nno statutory requirement to notify the same in the gazette as prior to
\n15.3.1984, there did not exist any such statutory requirement.  It was urged
\nthat as the Board by a notification dated 19.10.1963 adopted fundamental
\nrules for its employees except those in work-charged establishments and
\nfurther adopted M.P. Act No.9 of 1976 by a notification dated 16.9.1976, in
\nterms whereof the age of retirement was prescribed at 58 years for all classes
\nof employees except Class IV employees in terms of FR 56 and 60 years for
\nClass IV employees. In any event, Mr. Rao would submit,  as the agreement\/
\nsettlement expired on 31.3.1999, the impugned notification dated 26.12.2000
\ncannot be faulted as the agreement by itself did not specify any age of
\nretirement and, thus, the employer had a right to reduce the age of retirement
\nwhich became necessary due to financial conditions of the Board.\n<\/p>\n
 \tMr. Rao would argue that the decisions of this Court interpreting
\nSection 19(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot be applied to the
\nindustrial settlements governed by the 1960 Act inasmuch in terms of
\nSection 99 thereof an agreement shall cease to have effect on the date
\nspecified therein and the said act does not contain any provisions like
\nSection 19(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terms whereof an
\nagreement is to continue to be binding on the parties until the expiry of two
\nmonths from the date of service of notice terminating the said agreement.\n<\/p>\n
STATUTORY PROVISIONS:\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe relevant entries of List III of Seventh Schedule of the
\nConstitution of India read thus:\n<\/p>\n
“22. Trade unions; industrial and labour disputes.\n<\/p>\n
23. Social security and social insurance;\n<\/p>\n
employment and unemployment.\n<\/p>\n
24. Welfare of labour including conditions of
\nwork, provident funds, employers’ liability,
\nworkmen’s compensation, invalidity and old age
\npensions and maternity benefits.\n<\/p>\n
38. Electricity.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tSections 33 and 99 of the 1960 Act are as under:\n<\/p>\n
“33. Agreements  (1) If in regard to a change
\nproposed under sub-section (1) or (2) of section
\n31, an agreement is arrived at, a memorandum of
\nsuch agreement shall be forwarded to the
\nRegistrar.\n<\/p>\n
(2) On receipt of the memorandum of agreement
\nsigned by the parties under sub-section (1), the
\nRegistrar shall register the agreement if it is
\narrived at  <\/p>\n
(a)\twithin seven days from the service of a
\nnotice under sub-section (1) or sub-\n<\/p>\n
section (2) of section 31, or with such
\nfurther period as may be agreed upon by
\nthe parties; or\n<\/p>\n
(b)\t***\n<\/p>\n
(c)\twithin two months from the completion
\nof conciliation proceedings:\n<\/p>\n
 \tProvided that the Registrar shall not register
\nan agreement which on enquiry he is satisfied is in
\ncontravention of the provisions of this Act or was
\nthe result of mistake, misrepresentation, fraud,
\nundue influence, coercion or threat.\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tAn appeal shall lie to the Industrial Court
\nagainst an order of the Registrar refusing to
\nregister an agreement under sub-section (2).  The
\nprovisions of section 22 shall apply to such appeal.
\n(4)\tAn agreement registered under this section
\nshall come into operation on the date specified
\ntherein or if no date is so specified on its being
\nrecorded by the Registrar.”\n<\/p>\n
“99. Agreements etc., when to case to have effect:-
\n(1) A registered agreement or a settlement or
\naward shall cease to have effect on the date
\nspecified therein or if no such date is specified
\ntherein on the expiry of the period of two months
\nfrom the date on which notice in writing to
\nterminate such agreement, settlement or award, as
\nthe case may be, is given in the prescribed manner
\nby any of the parties thereto to the other parties:\n<\/p>\n
 \tProvided that no such notice shall be given
\ntill the expiry of six months after the agreement,
\nsettlement or award comes into operation.\n<\/p>\n
(2) Nothing in this section shall prevent the terms
\nof a registered agreement or a settlement or an
\naward in terms of an agreement being changed or
\nmodified by mutual consent of the parties affected
\nthereby and the registered agreement, settlement or
\naward shall be deemed to be changed or modified
\naccordingly.\n<\/p>\n
(3) ***<\/p>\n
(4) The party giving notice under sub-section [1]
\nshall send a copy of it to the Register and the
\nLabour Officer of the local area concerned.\n<\/p>\n
(5) If a registered agreement or a settlement or an
\naward is terminated under sub-section [1] or if the
\nterms of a registered agreement or a settlement or
\nan award are changed or modified by mutual
\nconsent, notice of such termination, change or
\nmodification shall be given by the parties
\nconcerned to the Registrar and the Labour Officer.
\nThe Registrar shall enter the notice of such
\ntermination, change or modification in a register
\nkept for the purpose.”\n<\/p>\n
Section 79 (c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“79. Power to make regulations  The Board may
\nby notification in the Official Gazette, make
\nregulations not inconsistent with this Act and the
\nrules made thereunder to provide for all or any of
\nthe following matters:-\n<\/p>\n
(c) \tthe duties of officers and other employees of
\nthe Board, and their salaries, allowances and other
\nconditions of service;”\n<\/p>\n
 \tSub-Section (2) of Section 2 of the 1961 Act reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
“2(2) \tNothing in this Act shall apply to the
\nemployees in an undertaking to whom the
\nFundamental and Supplementary Rules, Civil
\nServices (Classification, Control and Appeal)
\nRules, Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules,
\nRevised Leave Rules, Civil Service Regulations or
\nany other rules or regulations that may be notified
\nin this behalf by the State Government in the
\nofficial Gazette apply.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe relevant part of Rule 14A of the 1973 Rules reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“14-A: Retirement: (1) An employee shall retire
\nfrom the service of the employer on the date he
\nattains the age of 58 years.  He may, however, be
\nretained inservice by the employer after the date of
\nattaining the age of 58 years if his services are
\nnecessary in the interest of the undertaking but he
\nshall not be retained in service after the age of 60
\nyears:\n<\/p>\n
 \tProvided that nothing in this clause shall
\nadversely affect the operation of the terms of any
\ncontract, agreement, settlement, or award on this
\nsubject, if the age of retirement is not less than 58
\nyears.”\n<\/p>\n
Issues :\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tWhether the regulations made under Section 79 (c) of the Act would
\nprevail over the Standing Order framed under the 1961 Act.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tWhether regulation dated 19.10.1963 issued by the Board adopting
\nfundamental and supplementary rules for its employees except those
\nin work-charged establishment and published in gazette on
\n26.12.2000 the application of the 1961 Act by reason of Section 2(2)
\nthereof stand excluded.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tWhether the respondent Board acted illegally and without jurisdiction
\nin issuing the notification dated 26.12.2000 reducing the age of Class
\nIII employees to 58 years.\n<\/p>\n
FINDINGS:\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt is trite that India being a Union of State both the Parliament and the
\nState Legislature can frame laws having regard to their respective legislative
\ncompetence enumerated in the three Lists contained in the Seventh Schedule
\nof the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
Before analyzing the relevant provisions of the State Acts vis-`-vis
\n‘the  Act’, we may have an overview of the constitutional scheme.   Articles
\n245 and 246 of the Constitution of India read with the Seventh Schedule and
\nLegislative Lists contained therein prescribe the extent of legislative
\ncompetence of Parliament and State Legislatures.  Parliament has exclusive
\npower to make laws with respect of any of the matters enumerated in List I
\nin the Seventh Schedule.  Similarly, State Legislatures have exclusive power
\nto make laws in respect of any of the matters enumerated in List II.
\nParliament and State Legislatures both have legislative power to make laws
\nwith respect to any matter enumerated in List III, the Concurrent List.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe various entries in the three Lists are fields of legislation.  They
\nare designed to define and delimit the respective areas of legislative
\ncompetence of the Union and State Legislatures.  Since legislative subjects
\ncannot always be divided into water tight compartments; some overlappings
\nbetween List I, II and III of the Seventh Schedule is inevitable.\n<\/p>\n
 \tNotwithstanding the fact that great care with which the various entries
\nin the three lists have been framed; on some rare occasions it may be found
\nthat one or the other field is not covered by these entries.  The makers of our
\nConstitution have, in such a case, taken care by conferring power to legislate
\non such residuary subjects upon the Union Parliament including taxation by
\nreason of Article 248 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
Doctrine of pith and substance, however, is taken recourse to when
\nexamining the constitutionality of an Act with respect to competing
\nlegislative competence of the Parliament and the State Legislature qua the
\nsubject matter.  Incidental entrenchment however is permissible.\n<\/p>\n
 \tAs in  a federal Constitution division of legislative powers between
\nthe Central and Provincial Legislatures exists, controversies arise as regards
\nencroachment of one legislative power by the other particularly in cases
\nwhere both the Union as well as the State Legislation have the competence
\nto enact laws.  Article 254 provides that if any provision of a law made by
\nthe Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision made by the
\nParliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an
\nexisting law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent
\nList then subject to provisions of clause (2), the law made by the Parliament
\nshall prevail to the extent of the repugnancy required.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn terms of clause 2 of Article 254 of the Constitution of India  where
\na law made by the legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters
\nenumerated in the Concurrent List contains any provisions repugnant to the
\nprovisions of an earlier law made by the Parliament or an existing law with
\nrespect to the matters, then the law so made by the Legislature of such State
\nshall, if it has been reserved for consideration of the President and has
\nreceived its assent, prevail in that State.  It is not in dispute that the 1961 Act
\nhas received the assent of the President of India and, thus, would prevail
\nover any parliamentary law governing the same field.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt is no doubt true that the entire field relating to  ‘Electricity’ is
\ncovered under Entry 38 of List III pursuant whereto  the Indian Electricity
\nAct and Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 were enacted but thereby the State’s
\nlegislative competence to exercise its legislative power under Entries 22, 23
\nand 24 was not taken away.  Section 79 (c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act
\nprovides for an incidental power upon the Board.  The same would,
\ntherefore, not prevail over the specific legislative competence granted to the
\nState to regulate the conditions of service between an industrial undertaking
\nand  its employees nor thereby the State Government would be denuded of
\nits legislative power relating to regulation of the industrial relations.\n<\/p>\n
Furthermore, both the Parliament and the State within their own
\nrespective legislative competence may make  legislations covering more
\nthan one entries in the three Lists contained in the Seventh Schedule of the
\nConstitution of India.  Article 254 of the Constitution of India would be
\nattracted only when legislations covering the same ground both by Centre
\nand by the Province operate in the field; both of them being competent to
\nenact.\n<\/p>\n
[See Deep Chand vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others.<\/a> [AIR 1959
\nSC 648] and M. Karunanidhi Vs. Union of India, [AIR 1979 SC 898] and
\nThe State of West Bengal Vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd. And Ors., [2004 (1)
\nSCALE 425].\n<\/p>\n
 \tRecourse to the said principles, however, would be resorted to only
\nwhen there exists direct conflict between two provisions and not otherwise.
\nOnce it is held that the law made by the Parliament and the State Legislature
\noccupy the same field, the subsequent legislation made by the State which
\nhad received the assent of the President of India indisputably would prevail
\nover the parliamentary Act when there exists direct conflict between two
\nenactments.  Both the laws would ordinarily be allowed to have their play in
\ntheir own respective fields.  However, in the event, there does not exist any
\nconflict, the Parliamentary Act or the State Act shall prevail over the other
\ndepending upon the fact as to whether the assent of the President has been
\nobtained therefor or not.  (See.  Bharat Hydro Power Corp. Ltd. & Ors. Vs.
\nState of Assam and Anr., 2004(1) SCALE 211).\n<\/p>\n
 \tKeeping in view of the fact that the State Government has the
\nexclusive power to enact a law regulating industrial relations and resolution
\nof labour disputes, as has been held by this Court in Christian Medical
\nCollege Hospital Employees’ Union and Another Vs. Christian Medical
\nCollege Vellore Association and Others [(1987) 4 SCC 691], the same shall
\nprevail over the regulations framed by the Board in exercise of its power
\nunder Section 79 (c).\n<\/p>\n
 \tThis brings us to the question as regard the effect of  the 1961 Act.  In
\nterms of Section 2, the 1961 Act, applies to every undertaking wherein the
\nnumber of employees on any day during the twelve months preceding or on
\nthe day the said Act came into force or any day thereafter was or is more
\nthan twenty and such other class or classes of undertakings as the State
\nGovernment may, from time to time, by notification, specify in this behalf.
\nThe undertaking of the Board indisputably was in existence in 1961.  Per se,
\ntherefore, the provisions of the 1961 Act shall apply to the undertakings of
\nthe Board.  Sub-Section (2) of Section 2 of the 1961 Act makes an exception
\nto the applicability of the Act stating that nothing therein shall apply to the
\nemployees of an undertaking to whom the Fundamental and Supplementary
\nRules, Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Civil
\nServices (Temporary Service) Rules, Revised Leave Rules, Civil Service
\nRegulations or any other rules or regulations that may be notified in this
\nbehalf the State Government in the official gazette apply.  For excluding the
\noperation of the 1961 Act, it is imperative that an appropriate notification in
\nterms of Section 2(2) of the 1961 Act is issued.\n<\/p>\n
The Board  adopted Fundamental and Supplementary Rules which per
\nse were not applicable to the employees of their undertaking.  They were
\nadopted by the Board.  The provisions of Fundamental and Supplementary
\nRules to the extent it was made applicable, having regard to the provisions
\ncontained in Section 79 (c) would, thus, be deemed to be the regulations
\ngoverning the terms and conditions of the employees of the Board.  The
\nrequisite notification under Section 2(2) of the 1966 Act was, thus,  required
\nto be issued by the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt is not in dispute that the State Government has not issued any
\nnotification in terms of Section 2(2) of the 1961 Act and in that view of the
\nmatter the provisions thereof shall apply to the employees of the State.  The
\n1961 Act is a special law whereas the regulations framed by the Board under
\nSection 79 (c) are general provisions.  The maxim ‘generalia specialibus non
\nderogant’ would, thus,  be applicable in this case. [See D.R. Yadav and
\nAnother Vs. R.K. Singh and Another, (2003) 7 SCC 110 and Indian
\nHandicrafts Emporium and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, [ (2003) 7
\nSCC 589].\n<\/p>\n
\tThe question need not detain us long in view of a 3-Judge Bench
\ndecision of this Court in Hari Shankar Jain (supra).  This Court therein in no
\nuncertain terms held that the provisions of the Standing Order Act are
\nspecial laws in regard to the matters enumerated in the Schedule and, thus,
\nthe regulations made by the Electricity Board with respect to any of those
\nmatters are of no effect unless the regulations are either notified by the
\nGovernment or certified by the certifying officer, holding :\n<\/p>\n
“18 In regard to matters in respect of which
\nregulations made by the Board have not been
\nnotified by the Governor or in respect of which no
\nregulations have been made by the Board, the
\nIndustrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act shall
\ncontinue to apply. In the present case the
\nregulation made by the Board with regard to age of
\nsuperannuation having been duly notified by the
\nGovernment, the regulation shall have effect
\nnotwithstanding the fact that it is a matter which
\ncould be the subject matter of Standing Orders
\nunder the Industrial Employment (Standing
\nOrders) Act…”\n<\/p>\n
[See also U.P. State Electricity Board and Another Vs. Labour Court (I),
\nU.P., Kanpur and Another (1984) 1 SCC 147].  We do not find any infirmity
\nin the said decisions of this Court and respectfully agree with the ratio laid
\ndown therein.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThis leads us to the question as to the applicability of the Rule 14A
\nvis-a-vis the agreement\/ settlement entered into by and between the parties
\ndated 10.6.1996.  In terms of Rule 14A of the 1973 Rules the age of
\nsuperannuation was fixed at 58 years.  The proviso appended to Rule 14A of
\nthe 1973 Rules, however, postulates that nothing therein shall adversely
\naffect the operation of the term of any agreement on the subject if the age of
\nretirement is not less than 58 years.  We have noticed that Clause (S) (9) of
\nthe settlement refers to the age of retirement which was registered in terms
\nof Section 33 of the 1960 Act.  The said agreement, keeping in view of the
\nproviso appended to Rule 14A and having  been issued in compliance of the
\nrequirements of the Act will operate in the field.  In terms of the said
\nagreement the age of retirement was to be the same as that of the employees
\nof the Central Government on acceptance of the recommendations of the
\nFifth Pay Commission.  The Central Government in exercise of its power
\nconferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and Clause (5) of
\nArticle 148 made rules known as Fundamental (Amendment) Rules, 1998 in
\nterms whereof Clause (a) was amended in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
“(a) \tExcept as otherwise provided in this rule,
\nevery Government servant shall retire from service
\non the afternoon of the last day of the month in
\nwhich he attains the age of sixty years:\n<\/p>\n
 \tProvided that a Government servant whose
\ndate of birth is the first of a month shall retire from
\nservice on the afternoon of the last day of
\npreceding month on attaining the age of sixty
\nyears.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tHaving regard to the said agreement, indisputably the Board also
\nenhanced the age of retirement of its employees by a notification dated
\n22.5.1998 which reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
“Sub: Enhancement in age of retirement.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn exercise of the powers conferred under
\nclause (c) of section 79 of the Electricity (Supply)
\nAct, 1948, the M.P. Electricity Board is pleased to
\nadopt the orders as contained in Government of
\nIndia, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances &
\nPensions (Department of Personnel & Training),
\nnotification No. 25012\/2\/97-Estt.(A) dated
\n13.8.1998 (copy enclosed) for application to the
\nBoard’ officers\/ employee with effect from
\n13.5.1998.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt is, however, not in dispute that the agreement dated 10.6.1996
\nexpired on 31.3.1999 as would appear from the following:\n<\/p>\n
“(W) \tThe wage structure and fringe benefits shall
\nbe effective for a period of 5 years upto 31.3.99
\nand no demand whatsoever shall be made or
\nconsidered in respect of the items already agreed
\nto.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tSection 99 of the 1960 Act, as referred to hereinbefore, postulates that
\na registered agreement or a settlement or award shall cease to have effect on
\nthe date specified therein and only in the event no date is specified on the
\nexpiry of two months from the date on which notice in writing to terminate
\nsuch agreement, settlement or award, as the case may be, is given in the
\nprescribed manner by any of the parties thereof to the other parties.  By
\nreason of the said provision, therefore, the settlement comes to end
\nautomatically on the date specified therefor and only in the event no date of
\nexpiry thereof is specified, a notice contemplated thereby is required to be
\nissued.  The provisions of the 1960 Act shall apply to the undertakings of the
\nelectricity, generation and distribution in terms of notification 31.12.1960
\nissued by the State.\n<\/p>\n
 \tSection 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, however, has been
\ncouched in a different language in terms whereof a settlement will be
\nbinding as is agreed upon by the parties and shall continue to be binding
\ndespite expiry thereof until the expiry of two months from the date on which
\na notice in writing of an intention to terminate the settlement is given by one
\nof the parties to the other party or parties to the settlement.\n<\/p>\n
The decisions of this Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. A.R.
\nChacko [1964 (5) SCR 625], Life Insurance Corporation and Others  Vs.
\nD.J. Bahadur [(1981) 1 SCC 315] and Karnataka State Road Transport
\nCorporation vs. Vs. KSRTC Staff and Workers’ Federation and Another<\/a>
\n[(1999) 2 SCC 687] which have been rendered having regard to the
\nphraseology used in Sub-Section (2) of Section 2 of the 1961 Act will thus
\nhave no application to the fact of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe proviso appended to Rule 14A of the 1973 Rules would, thus,
\noperate provided there exists a valid agreement.  Furthermore, the terms and
\nconditions laid down in the certified order may have the force of law but
\nthey by themselves do not constitute statutory provisions.  [See Rajasthan
\nState Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs. Krishna Kant and
\nOthers, [ (1995) 5 SCC 75].\n<\/p>\n
 \tRule 14A of the 1973 Rules prescribes the age of superannuation to
\n58 years.  It can be enhanced upto the age of 60 years if the services of the
\nperson are necessary in the interest of the undertaking but he shall not be
\nretained in service after the age of 60 years unless in terms of the proviso,
\nthere exists any agreement\/settlement or award to the contrary.  The
\nenhanced age of superannuation of members of the appellant Association
\nwas, therefore, subject to any law that may operate in the field.  The
\nrespondent Board, as noticed hereinbefore, issued the notification dated
\n22.5.1998 whereby and whereunder it had given a seal of approval to the
\naforementioned agreement, which was to continue to operate in view of the
\nagreement,  until the same is replaced by another valid notification.  The
\nBoard has issued such a notification on 26.12.2000 in exercise of its
\nstatutory power under Section 79(c) of  ‘the Act’.\n<\/p>\n
It is one thing to say that when there exists a conflict between a
\nregulation made under Section 79(c) of the Act and a certified standing order
\nor a rule made under the 1961 Act, the latter shall prevail; but it is another
\nthing to say that in absence of any statutory provision governing the age of
\nretirement, the statutory regulations framed by the respondent Board shall
\nhave no application.  It is not in dispute that the impugned notification dated
\n26.12.2000 had been issued by the Board in exercise of its power under
\nSection 79(c) of Electricity Supply Act.  Section 15 of the Act empowers the
\nBoard to appoint a Secretary and such other officers as may be required to
\nenable the Board to carry out its functions.  Section 79(c) empowers the
\nBoard to make regulations inter alia as regard the duties of officers and other
\nemployees of the Board, and their salaries, allowances and other conditions
\nof service.  The Board, therefore, was empowered to make regulations which
\nare not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the Rules providing
\nfor the duties of officers, their salaries, allowances and other conditions of
\nservice.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe power of the Board, therefore, to lay down the conditions of
\nservice of its employees either in terms of regulation or otherwise would be
\nsubject only to any valid law to the contrary operating in the field.
\nAgreement within the meaning of proviso appended to Rule 14A is not a law
\nand, thus, the regulations made by the Board shall prevail thereover.\n<\/p>\n
The Board has power to make regulations which having regard to the
\nprovisions of General Clauses Act would mean that they can make such
\nregulations from time to time.\n<\/p>\n
Alterations in the age of retirement by the employer is a matter of
\nexecutive policy and for sufficient and cogent reasons, the same is
\npermissible.  [See K. Nagaraj and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and
\nAnother [(1985) 1 SCC 523], Osmania University Vs. V.S. Muthurangam
\nand  Others  [(1997) 10 SCC 741], N. Lakshmana Rao and Others Vs. State
\nof Karnataka and Others [(1976) 2 SCC 502] and Chandra Singh vs. State of
\nRajasthan [(2003) 6 SCC 545].\n<\/p>\n
We, therefore, are of the opinion that the High Court has rightly
\ndismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
 \tFor the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that there is no
\nmerit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.  No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs M.P. Electricity Board on 18 March, 2004 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: Cji, S.B. Sinha, S.H. Kapadia. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2510 of 2002 PETITIONER: M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh RESPONDENT: M.P. Electricity Board DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18\/03\/2004 BENCH: CJI, S.B. Sinha & S.H. Kapadia. JUDGMENT: J U […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21137","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs M.P. Electricity Board on 18 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-vidyut-karamchari-sangh-vs-m-p-electricity-board-on-18-march-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs M.P. Electricity Board on 18 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-vidyut-karamchari-sangh-vs-m-p-electricity-board-on-18-march-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-09T04:10:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"27 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-vidyut-karamchari-sangh-vs-m-p-electricity-board-on-18-march-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-vidyut-karamchari-sangh-vs-m-p-electricity-board-on-18-march-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs M.P. Electricity Board on 18 March, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-09T04:10:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-vidyut-karamchari-sangh-vs-m-p-electricity-board-on-18-march-2004\"},\"wordCount\":5437,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-vidyut-karamchari-sangh-vs-m-p-electricity-board-on-18-march-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-vidyut-karamchari-sangh-vs-m-p-electricity-board-on-18-march-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-vidyut-karamchari-sangh-vs-m-p-electricity-board-on-18-march-2004\",\"name\":\"M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs M.P. Electricity Board on 18 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-09T04:10:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-vidyut-karamchari-sangh-vs-m-p-electricity-board-on-18-march-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-vidyut-karamchari-sangh-vs-m-p-electricity-board-on-18-march-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-vidyut-karamchari-sangh-vs-m-p-electricity-board-on-18-march-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs M.P. Electricity Board on 18 March, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs M.P. Electricity Board on 18 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-vidyut-karamchari-sangh-vs-m-p-electricity-board-on-18-march-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs M.P. Electricity Board on 18 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-vidyut-karamchari-sangh-vs-m-p-electricity-board-on-18-march-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-09T04:10:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"27 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-vidyut-karamchari-sangh-vs-m-p-electricity-board-on-18-march-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-vidyut-karamchari-sangh-vs-m-p-electricity-board-on-18-march-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs M.P. Electricity Board on 18 March, 2004","datePublished":"2004-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-09T04:10:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-vidyut-karamchari-sangh-vs-m-p-electricity-board-on-18-march-2004"},"wordCount":5437,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-vidyut-karamchari-sangh-vs-m-p-electricity-board-on-18-march-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-vidyut-karamchari-sangh-vs-m-p-electricity-board-on-18-march-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-vidyut-karamchari-sangh-vs-m-p-electricity-board-on-18-march-2004","name":"M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs M.P. Electricity Board on 18 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-09T04:10:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-vidyut-karamchari-sangh-vs-m-p-electricity-board-on-18-march-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-vidyut-karamchari-sangh-vs-m-p-electricity-board-on-18-march-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-vidyut-karamchari-sangh-vs-m-p-electricity-board-on-18-march-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs M.P. Electricity Board on 18 March, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21137","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21137"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21137\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21137"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21137"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21137"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}