Manisana, J.- In this writ petition, the petitioners have chall­enged the vires of regulations 3 to 7, 5 to 19 and 22 of the Assam State Electricity Board Officers' (Conduct) Regulations, 1982, for short the "1982-Regulations''. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the regulations violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and that the Assam State Electricity Board (ASEB for bravity) has no jurisdiction to make the "1982-Regulations" under section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, for short the "Supply Act", or under regulation 10 of the Assam State Electricity Board (General Service) Regulation, 1960 for short the "1960-Regulations". 3. Section 79 of the Supply Act empowers the Board to make regulations in respect of the matters specified in clauses (a) to (k) of that section. Clause (c) of section 79 empowers the Electricity Board to make regulations in respect of "the duties of officers and other employees of the Board, and their salaries and other con­ditions of service"' (emphasis added). 4. In UPSE Board vs. Hari Shankar, AIR 1979 SC 65 , the Sup­reme Court has, while considering the Supply Act and Industrial Em­ployees (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, for short the "Standing Order Act'', has held that Statutory Bodies are authorities within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, and that the employee of those bodies have a statutory status, and that the regulations made under the statute creating those bodies have the force of law. The Supr­eme Court has further held that the Standing Orders Act is a spec­ial law in regard to the matters enumerated in the schedule and the regulations made by the Electricity Board with respect to any of those matters are of no effect unless such regulations are either notified by the Government under section 13-B or certified by the Certifying Officer under section 5 of the Standing Orders Act. This pri­nciple was again reiterated in UPSE Board vs. Labour Court, AIR 1984 SC 1450 . 5. It be noted here that by a notification dated 6.9.61 the Gov­ernment of Assam exempted the ASEB from the operation of the Standing Orders Act. The notification runs as follows : "No GLR. 236/59/pt. This pri­nciple was again reiterated in UPSE Board vs. Labour Court, AIR 1984 SC 1450 . 5. It be noted here that by a notification dated 6.9.61 the Gov­ernment of Assam exempted the ASEB from the operation of the Standing Orders Act. The notification runs as follows : "No GLR. 236/59/pt. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 14 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (Act XX of 1946), the Governor of Assam is pleased to exempt the Assam State Electricity Board, Shillong from the operation the (sic, of) said Act." 6. Turning to the "1982-Regulation", the regulation defines officers in the following terms : "Officers' mean employees of the Board other than 'Work­men' who are governed or such of them as come to be gov­erned at any future date under the Industrial Employment (Sta­nding Orders) Act, 1946." Section 79 (c) classifies the employees of the Electricity Board into two classes, namely 'officers' and "other employees". Regulation 2 also categorises the employees of the ASEB into two categories, namely 'officers' and 'workmen'. Although the Standing Orders Act is not applied in the case of workmen of the ASEB, the definition of 'workman' has been borrowed from the Standing Orders Act. Under section 2 (i) of the Standing Orders Act, the expression 'workman' has the meaning assigned to it in cause (a) of section 2 of the In­dustrial Disputes Act, 1947. It appears that the definition of 'officers' given in regulation 2 is ambiguous, however, we are of the view that, under regulation 2 r/w section 79 (c), the ASEB has divided its employees into two categories, namely 'officers' and 'workman'. Therefore, the meaning of 'officers' under regulation 2 mean employees of the ASEB who are not workmen as is defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 7. Under regulation 2 (d) of the "1960-Regulation", the "employees" is defined to mean "any person employed by or in the name of the Board to do any work for hire or reward, whether the terms of the employment be expressed or implied''. Regulation 10 of 1960-Regulations' is under the head "Disciplinary Action and Punishment". Under regulation 10, the ASEB is authorised to prescribe the rules of conduct. But under the 1960-Regulation", there is no such classifi­cation of the employees as has been made under the 1982-Regulations'. Regulation 10 of 1960-Regulations' is under the head "Disciplinary Action and Punishment". Under regulation 10, the ASEB is authorised to prescribe the rules of conduct. But under the 1960-Regulation", there is no such classifi­cation of the employees as has been made under the 1982-Regulations'. However, a perusal of the 1982-Regulations' or the impugned regulations we find that it is the ordinary general powers of the employer invested to regulate the conditions of the services of his employees. 8. The grievance of the petitioners is that no regulations have been made for the workman and, therefore, there is a discrimina­tion between the officers and the other employees who have been ca­tegorized as 'workmen'. As already stated, regulation 10 of the 1960-Regulations' provides for the disciplinary action and the punishment as well as conduct of all the employees. Therefore, after the 1982-Regulations' came into force, the 1982-Regulations' shall apply to the employees of the ASEB who are classified as 'officers' and the 1960-Regulation', except so much thereof as relate to the matters covered by 1982-Regulations', shall govern other employees of the ASEB including the 'workmen' defined under the Industrial Disputes Act. The classification 'officers' and 'workmen' is reasonably based on intelligible differentia between the two classes. Therefore, there is reasonable nexus between the basis of classification for the purpose of differentiation and object sought to be achieved by the "1982-Regulations". 9. For the foregoing reasons, the ASEB has jurisdiction to make the impugned regulations and the regulations do not violate the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No costs.