Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 616 (KAR)

KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD EMPLOYEES UNION, BANGALORE v. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD, BANGALORE

2006-07-26

R.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS

body2006
ORDER In this writ petition the petitioners have sought for a declaration declaring that the notification dated 17-4-1997 issued by the respondents as illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires of the settlement dated 30-9-1974 and violative of Articles 14, 16, 21, 38, 39, 41, 42 and 43 of the Constitution of India and for consequential benefits insofar as it relates to: (i) denial of free electricity to the future incumbents to the Board's service; (ii) prescribing Pre-University Course qualification to the post of Junior Assistants; and (iii) prescribing ITC/ITI qualification to the posts of Assistant Linemen and equivalent categories. 2. Before 1957, the generation and transmission of electrical power was discharged by the erstwhile Electrical Department of the Government of Mysore. Under the provisions of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, a Board was constituted on 30-9-1957 in place of the Government Electrical Department. Subsequently, in the year 1970, the Electrical Power Generation was handed over to the Karnataka Power Corporation. The Karnataka Electricity Board was entrusted with the job of the electrical power transmission and distribution alone. During the pendency of this writ petition, the Karnataka Electricity Board came to be renamed as the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (for short, 'KPTCL'). Thereafter, five more Electricity Supply Companies have come into existence with effect from 1-6-2002 taking over the function of transmission and distribution of power. The 5 companies are.- 1. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited; 2. Mangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited; 3. Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited; 4. Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company Limited; 5. Visweswaraiah Vidyuth Nigama Limited. 3. Petitioner is a registered Trade Union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Petitioner is a recognised Union representing the workmen in the respondent-Corporation. In view of the changes in the composition and in the nomenclature of the respondent-Corporation, the name of the petitioner-Union also came to be changed as Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Employees' Union. These changes in the names of the respondent-Corporation and the petitioner-Union are carried out in the writ petition by way of suitable amendments. 4. The service conditions of workmen in the respondent-Corporation are governed by statutory enactment and also by various settlements entered into between the Union and the Corporation. Originally the electrical power generation, transmission and distribution of power was done by the erstwhile department of the Mysore Government. All the employees of the erstwhile electrical department were getting free supply of power for domestic consumption. Originally the electrical power generation, transmission and distribution of power was done by the erstwhile department of the Mysore Government. All the employees of the erstwhile electrical department were getting free supply of power for domestic consumption. In the year 1977 there came to be certain disputes regarding the number of units of free power, the rate charged for excess use of power and for additional units of power during monsoon seasons in Malnadand hilly areas etc. On 28-12-1982 there came to be a memorandum of settlement entered into between the Union and the Corporation agreeing to refer the disputes to an Arbitrator. The relevant points of disputes referred for arbitration are as under: "Whether, the workmen of KEB are justified in demanding that the benefit of free power supply be extended to all the employees on a rational basis by removing the existing discrimination in the grant of this benefit between employees appointed prior to 4th January, 1966 and after 4th January, 1966? If not, what relief are they entitled?" 5. The Arbitrator Sri M. Sachidananda Moorthy, the then Chairman of the Board submitted his award on 8-5-1984 and the then Board accepted the award insofar as extending the benefit of free power supply to all the workmen subject to certain conditions. The Corporation implemented the same. Now the Corporation amended the Regulations under the impugned Notification dated 17-4-1997 amending Regulation 6 of Chapter 2 of the Karnataka Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotion of Employees of the Board Service Regulations, 1960 prescribing qualification to the post of Junior Assistants and Assistant Lineman and also denial of free power supply to the future incumbents to the Corporation service. Hence this petition. 6. Sri K Subbarao, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-Union contends, that the impugned amended Regulations are in contravention of the award of the Arbitrator dated 8-5-1984. The impugned amendment to the Regulations are in contravention of Section 18(3)(d) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The qualification prescribed to the post of Junior Assistant and Assistant Linemen are totally invalid, irrational, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The denial of free power supply to the future recruits will amount to hostile and invidious discrimination. The impugned amendment of the regulations is arbitrary and done with an intention to deprive the employees the existing service conditions and rights. The denial of free power supply to the future recruits will amount to hostile and invidious discrimination. The impugned amendment of the regulations is arbitrary and done with an intention to deprive the employees the existing service conditions and rights. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: 1. Life Insurance Corporation of India v. D.J. Bahadur and Others 1; 2. N.S. Giri v. Corporation of the City of Mangalore and Others2; 3. Ashoka Marketing Limited and Another v. Punjab National Bank and Others3; 4. State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa and Others4; 7. Per contra, Sri Ramdas, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-Corporation contends, that it is the prerogative of an employer to prescribe the required qualification taking into account the need of the job, availability of work force, future needs of the organisation etc. He contends that subsequent to the award dated 8-5-1984 remarkable changes have taken place and the conditions in the Corporation have undergone a significant change. The Corporation after considering various aspects decided to withdraw the benefits for the future employees. However, the benefit of free power supply is continued to the existing employees. He contends that the petitioner-Union cannot agitate for the rights of non-existing employees. Under Section 79(c) of the Electricity Supply Act, the Corporation is empowered to amend the Regulations governing the service conditions of the employees. He justifies the impugned notification amending the Regulations. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: 1. Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India and Another5; 2. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Babu Ram Upadhya6; 3. Workmen of M/s. Sur Iron and Steel Company Private Limited v. M/s. Sur Iron and Steel Company Private Limited and Another7; 4. N.S. Giri's case; 5. New Maneck Chowk Spinning and Weaving Company Limited, Ahmedabad and Others v. Textile Labour Association, Ahmedabad8; 6. State of Tamil Nadu v. M /s. Hind Stone1; 7. State of Bombay and Another v. F.N. Balsara2; 8. Edward Mills Company Limited, Beawar and Others v. State of Ajmer and Another3; 9. Sukhdev Singh and Others v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and Another4; 10. Bishun Narain Misra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others5; 8. Heard arguments on both the sides and perused the entire writ papers. The following two points will arise for my consideration. Edward Mills Company Limited, Beawar and Others v. State of Ajmer and Another3; 9. Sukhdev Singh and Others v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and Another4; 10. Bishun Narain Misra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others5; 8. Heard arguments on both the sides and perused the entire writ papers. The following two points will arise for my consideration. They are: I. Whether the amended Regulations dated 17-4-1997 prescribing modified qualifications for recruitment to the post of Junior Assistants and Assistant Lineman are illegal and unconstitutional? II. Whether the amended Regulations dated 17-4-1997 denying free electricity power supply to the future incumbents to the Board's services is illegal and unconstitution? 9. On Point No. I.-Identical issue came up for consideration before this Court in W.P. No. 34259 of 1997 and connected matters disposed of on 6-3-1998. In the said decision, learned Single Judge of this Court held: "The Board, as employer, has absolute discretion to assess the qualifications required for a post and is entitled to prescribe educational and other qualifications, to ensure selection of suitable candidates for the post. In fact the Board alone knows the requirements of a job and therefore the relevant factors necessary to determine the qualifications for a person to hold such a job. As prescription of qualification is within the exclusive domain of the employer and no prospective employee has a right to require that the prescription of qualification should be in a particular manner….... ". 10. This conclusion of the learned Single Judge is upheld by a Division Bench in W.A. No. 2349 of 1998 and connected matters disposed off on 2-2-1999. In view of the law declared by this Court as stated above, Point No.1 is answered in negative. 11. On Point No. II.-It is not in dispute that the employees of the respondent-Corporation were enjoying free supply of electrical power domestic consumption subject to certain conditions upto the year 1997. The Corporation amended the Karnataka Electricity Board recruitment and promotion of Employees of the Board Service Regulations with effect from 17-4-1997 denying the free power supply to the future incumbents to the Corporation service, but the benefit of free power supply is being continued to the existing employees of the Corporation. Now the petitioner-Union has filed this petition questioning the withdrawal of free supply of electrical power to the prospective employees of the Corporation. Now the petitioner-Union has filed this petition questioning the withdrawal of free supply of electrical power to the prospective employees of the Corporation. The contention of the petitioner is, that by an award dated 8-5-1984 the benefit of free power supply was extended to all the workmen of the Corporation. All the workmen means and include those who are already employed and all persons who will subsequently become employed in the Corporation. It is contended that the award dated 8-5-1984 is accepted and implemented by the Corporation. Therefore, the petitioner contends, unless the award dated 8-5-1984 is altered by a subsequent award or settlement, the same continues to bind the parties. Since the award dated 8-5-1984 is not altered or modified, the Corporation has no power or authority to withdraw free power supply to the future employees of the Corporation. The impugned amendment of regulations is contrary to Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. This contention of the learned Counsel for petitioner-Union is unacceptable to me. 12. The Supreme Court in the case of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, held as under: "75. It is desirable to appreciate what is a settlement as understood in the Industrial Disputes Act. In essence, it is a contract between the employer and the workmen prescribing new terms and conditions of service. These constitute a variation of existing terms and conditions. As soon as the settlement is concluded and becomes operative, the contract embodied in it takes effect and the existing terms and conditions of the workmen are modified accordingly. Unless there is something to the contrary in a particular term or condition of the settlement the embodied contract endures indefinitely, continuing to govern the relation between the parties in the future, subject of course to subsequent alteration through a fresh settlement, award or valid legislation ... ". (emphasis supplied) 13. As per the dictum of the Supreme Court in Bahadur's case an award or settlement can be altered through a fresh settlement, award or valid legislation. Admittedly, in this case, subsequent to the award dated 8-5-1984 there is no fresh settlement or award. Now the question is, whether there is a valid legislation withdrawing the benefit of free power supply to the future employees of the Corporation? The Corporation under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, amended the regulations. Admittedly, in this case, subsequent to the award dated 8-5-1984 there is no fresh settlement or award. Now the question is, whether there is a valid legislation withdrawing the benefit of free power supply to the future employees of the Corporation? The Corporation under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, amended the regulations. Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, reads as under: "79. Power to make regulations.-The Board may by notification in the Official Gazette, make regulations not inconsistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder to provide for all or any of the following matters, namely.- (a) x x x x x x (b) x x x x x x (c) the duties of officers and other employees of the Board, and their salaries, allowances and other conditions of service". 14. The Corporation by exercising the power under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act amended the Regulations. The Corporation amended the Regulations by exercising its power under delegated legislation. Therefore, the amended Regulations are having the force of law. Thus, by a valid legislation, the Corporation has withdrawn the benefit of free power supply to the future employees of the Corporation. Therefore, the amended regulations are not violative of Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 15. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Union that continuing the benefit of free power supply to the existing employees and denying the same benefit to the future employees is discriminative and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution is unacceptable to me. The existing employees of the Corporation are different from future employees. The existing employees and future employees are not equals and are not similar. Therefore, the impugned amended regulation denying-free power supply to the future employees is neither discriminatory nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 16. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is rejected with no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.