JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - The petitioner who was an employee under the Orissa State Electricity Board assails the order of superannuation on attaining 58th year, annexed as Annexure-5. The main grounds on which the petitioner assails the superannuation are:- (i) The Standing Orders having provided for conditions of service of an employee of the Board and not having provided for the age of superannuation, the petitioner could not have been retired on attainment of 58th year on the basis of the Regulations framed u/s 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, called the Orissa State Electricity Board Employees' Age of Retirement Regulations, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Retirement Regulations'); (ii) The said Regulations not having been published in the Official Gazelle has no force in the eye of law; (iii) Under the Regulations, only employees described in Categories I, II and III of the Schedule are to superannuate on completion of 58 years and those in Category IV are to retire on completion of 60 years. Since Cable Jointer or Senior Cable Jointer does not come within any of the categories, the Regulations in question will have no application to the petitioner's case. (iv) At any rate, no notification having been issued u/s 13-B of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Standing Orders Act') notifying the application of the Retirement Regulations, the provisions of the Standing Orders Act would continue to apply and even if there is no provision in the Standing Orders prescribing age of superannuation, the Retirement Regulations cannot apply. 2. On behalf of the Board, a counter affidavit has been filed and the stand of the Board is:- (a) In exercise of powers conferred under Clause (c) of Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, the Board having framed the Retirement Regulations fixing the age of superannuation, the said Regulations would govern the field, particularly when there is no provision in the Standing Orders Act fixing the age of superannuation. (b) It was not the requirement of law that the Regulations framed u/s 79(c) to be effective must be published in the Gazette until Section 79(c) itself was amended. The Regulations in question having been framed prior to the amendment in question, the same were a valid peice of Regulations and there is no infirmity on that score. (b) It was not the requirement of law that the Regulations framed u/s 79(c) to be effective must be published in the Gazette until Section 79(c) itself was amended. The Regulations in question having been framed prior to the amendment in question, the same were a valid peice of Regulations and there is no infirmity on that score. (c) The post of Cable Jointer was brought into the Category of Jointer-A, as would appear from Annexure-A to the counter affidavit and Jointer-A having been admittedly there in the category for which age of superannuation has been provided for in the Retirement Regulations, the petitioner's contention to the contrary is of no substance. (d) Section 13-B of the Standing Orders Act has no application in the present case, since there has been no provision in the Standing Orders prescribing age of superannuation. Therefore, the Regulations framed u/s 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act prescribing the age of superannuation shall apply. 3. In course of hearing of the writ application, Mr. Palit appearing for the petitioner reiterates his stand taken in the writ application. We would examine the correctness of his submissions in seriatim. 4. So far as the first point is concerned, there cannot be any dispute that the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act being a special law with regard to the matters enumerated in the Schedule must override all other provisions of law made in that respect in exercise of any other powers by the employer and, therefore, if the Standing Orders certified in exercise of powers under the Standing Orders Act had provided for an age of superannuation, then that must prevail subject to the question whether a notification u/s 13-B of the Standing Orders Act has been made or not. The scheme of the Standing Orders Act is that within six months from the date on which the Act became applicable to an industrial establishment, the employer shall submit to the Certifying Officer a draft Standing Orders proposed by him for adoption in his industrial establishment. In the said Draft Standing Orders provision has to be made in respect of every matter set out in the Schedule and where a model Standing Order has been provided for, then the draft Standing Orders must be so made as to be in conformity with the model Standing Orders as far as practicable. In the said Draft Standing Orders provision has to be made in respect of every matter set out in the Schedule and where a model Standing Order has been provided for, then the draft Standing Orders must be so made as to be in conformity with the model Standing Orders as far as practicable. The draft Standing Orders shall also accompany the prescribed particulars of the workmen employed in the industrial establishment. u/s 4 of the said Standing Orders Act, if it is found that provision has been made for every matter set out in the Schedule and that the Standing Orders are otherwise in conformity with the provisions of the Act, then the Certifying Officer shall adjudicate upon the fairness of the provisions of the Standing Orders and thereafter u/s 4, the said Certifying Officer after giving an opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned, shall decide whether any modification or addition to the draft Standing Orders is necessary to be made or not and thereupon certify the draft Standing Orders after making any modification and on such certification the Standing Orders become the law for the industrial establishment. Section 15 authorises the appropriate State Government to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act and in exercise of that rule-making power it is open for the State Government to provide for any other matter which is to be or may be prescribed. The Schedule attached to the Standing Orders indicates the matters to be provided in the Standing Orders from items 1 to 11. The question of fixing age of superannuation is not covered by any of these items. So far as Orissa is concerned, the State Government has not exercised its power u/s 15 and has not made any modification to the Schedule. Therefore, the Standing Orders so far as the State Electricity Board is concerned did not provide for any age of superannuation. Since there was no provision made in the Standing Orders prescribing age of superannuation and since Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act empowered the Board to make Regulations prescribing the age of superannuation and such Regulations had been framed, the said Regulations must govern the field so far as age of superannuation is concerned and the question of the Standing Orders Act overriding that provision of the Regulations does not arise. In fact, in the Bench decision of this Court in O.J.C. No. 1531 of 1979 (Sudhir Solomon Sahoo v. Orissa State Electricity Board) disposed of on September 11, 1987, to which I was a party, it has been categorically held that the Regulations framed u/s 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act prescribing the age of superannuation at 58 are a valid piece of Regulations and the same applies. The first submission of Mr. Palit is, therefore, without any force and is accordingly rejected. 5. So far as the second contention is concerned, the main plank of Mr. Palit's argument is that the Regulations framed by the Board in exercise of power u/s 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act not having been published in the Official Gazette the same would not be valid and, therefore, the same cannot have any application to the petitioner. According to Mr. Palit in view of the amendment made to the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 by Act 20 of 1983, any Regulations framed by the Board must be notified in the Official Gazette and that not having been done, the Retirement Regulations are invalid and inoperative. We are unable to accept this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act was amended by Act 20 of 1983 and that amendment came into force with effect from August 30, 1983. But much prior to the aforesaid amendment of the Electricity (Supply) Act, the Retirement Regulations had already been framed u/s 79(c) of the said Electricity (Supply) Act and it was prior to the amendment. Prior to the amendment of Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act by Act 20 of 1983, it was not the requirement of law that a Regulation must be notified in the Gazette to be effective. Subsequent amendment made in 1983 will not apply to a valid Regulation framed u/s 79(c) prior to its amendment. In that view of the matter, the Retirement Regulations cannot be said to be invalid being not in conformity with the amended provisions of Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act. In other words, the amended provision has no retrospective application and will not apply to a Regulation already framed. The second contention of Mr. Palit is accordingly rejected. 6. In that view of the matter, the Retirement Regulations cannot be said to be invalid being not in conformity with the amended provisions of Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act. In other words, the amended provision has no retrospective application and will not apply to a Regulation already framed. The second contention of Mr. Palit is accordingly rejected. 6. So far as the third submission is concerned, in view of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Board and Annexure-A to the said counter affidavit, the new nomenclature of Cable Jointer being Jointer-A and that nomenclature being mentioned in the Retirement Regulations and the petitioner having held one such post on the date of his superannuation, the Retirement Regulations apply with full force and the petitioner's contention on this score cannot be accepted. 7. The only other question that survives for our consideration is whether non-notification by the Governor u/s 13-B of the Standing Orders Act would make the provisions of the Retirement Regulations wholly invalid and inoperative. Mr. Palit in this regard strongly relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board, v. H. S. Jain ) and contends that with regard to matters in respect of which Regulations made by the Board have not been notified by the Governor or in respect of which no Regulations have been made by the Board, the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act shall continue to apply and since in the present case there has been no notification by the Governor u/s 13-B, the Regulations cannot have any application. The positive assertion of the petitioner that the Retirement Regulations have not been notified by the Governor u/s 13-B of the Standing Orders Act not having been controverted must be taken to have been admitted. Yet, the further question that has to be answered is whether the Regulations not being notified by the Governor u/s 13-B of the Standing Orders Act can be said to be invalid. Yet, the further question that has to be answered is whether the Regulations not being notified by the Governor u/s 13-B of the Standing Orders Act can be said to be invalid. In U.P. State Electricity Board's case referred to supra, no doubt, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have made that observation, but that observation had been made in the context that the U.P. Government had made modifications to the Schedule in exercise of powers u/s 15 of the Standing Orders Act and in exercise of the modified Schedule, the Standing Orders for the U.P. Electricity Board had provided for age of superannuation. It is apparent from the very decision on which Mr. Palit relies as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rohtak Hissar District Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Utter Pradesh and Others, ). But that observation will not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case where the State Government has not exercised its power u/s 15, not has there been any modification of the Schedule nor the Standing Orders have provided for any age of superannuation. The purpose of Section 13-B of the Standing Orders Act is to exclude the operation of the said Standing Orders Act to an industrial establishment when any Rules or Regulations have been framed by the employer and have been notified to that effect by the appropriate Government in the Official Gazette. In other words, when Rules or Regulations are made governing the conditions of service of employees, then the Governor by issuing notification u/s 13-B of the Standing Orders Act can exclude the operation of the provisions of the said Standing Orders Act. But where the Standing Orders framed under the Standing Orders Act do not provide for any age of superannuation and particularly when the Schedule also does not provide for such an age, and there has been no modification of the schedule in exercise of power u/s 15 of the Standing Orders Act and the only Regulations operating in the field are the Regulations framed u/s 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, the question of making a notification u/s 13-B of the Standing Orders Act does not arise at all. The observation of their Lordships in the very U.P. State Electricity Board's case (supra), on which Mr. The observation of their Lordships in the very U.P. State Electricity Board's case (supra), on which Mr. Palit relies, while examining the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, to the effect U.P. State Electricity Board, v. H. S. Jain at 404): "... If Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act generally provides for the making of regulations providing for the conditions of service of the employees of the Board, it can only be regarded as a general provision which must yield to the special provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act in respect of matters covered by the latter Act." (italics ours) clearly indicates that the special provision in the Standing Orders Act would override the general provisions made under the 'Electricity (Supply) Act' in respect of matters covered by the Standing Orders Act. Since age of superannuation is not one of the matters covered by the Standing Orders Act, the only law that is prevalent in the field is the general law made u/s 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act and, therefore, that should operate. It is not disputed by Mr. Palit that so far as Orissa is concerned, there has been no modification of the Schedule by the State Government in exercise of power u/s 15 of the Standing Orders Act and that there is no provision in the Standing Orders with regard to the age of superannuation and we also hold that without any modification of the Schedule it would not be possible to make such a provision in the Standing Orders. This being the position, the Regulations validly made in exercise of powers u/s 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act prescribing the age of superannuation are the only provisions operative in the field and, therefore, the retirement of the petitioner in accordance with the provision of the said Regulations is valid and we do not find any infirmity in such superannuation of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations. The last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also, therefore, without any substance and the same is accordingly rejected. 8. All the contentions having failed, the writ application fails and is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, without any orders as to costs. J.M. Mahupatra, J. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed