Judgment The matter was heard on 25.09.2012, 28.09.2012 and thereafter today. 2. Shri Moharir, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after conviction by a Competent Court of law and in exercise of statutory power conferred by Regulation 10 (a) of the Maharashtra Electricity Supply Board Employees Service Regulations, Respondent No. 1 (now deceased through LRs) was terminated. The exercise of that power and termination has been unnecessarily mixed and confused with Model Standing Orders by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Nagpur. IDA Reference relating to that termination needed to be answered in negative. He is relying upon the relevant provisions of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 and Maharashtra State Electricity Board Employees Service Regulation for said purpose. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs. M.P. Electricity Board, reported at 2004 II LLJ 470, is also pressed into service to show that in such situation, the service regulations framed by Board have to prevail. 3. Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel for legal heirs of Respondent No. 1 supports the award delivered by Labour Court. He submits that judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs. M.P. Electricity Board (supra) does not deviate from settled law on the point. According to him, consideration up to paras 29 and 30 in said judgment is in favour of Respondent No. 1. He invites attention to paras 31 and 33 to contend that there the Hon'ble Apex Court has examined the situation where field was not occupied and, therefore, the regulations framed by Board are permitted to operate. He states that here, deceased Respondent No. 1 was Artisan D and admittedly a workman as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. His services were, therefore, regulated by the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and Model Standing Orders framed thereunder. The Model Standing Orders required a misconduct either on establishment of employer or then in connection with employment with employer to permit the petitioner to proceed departmentally against the workman. Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel states that here on the day of alleged offence, the petitioner was on his duty and stolen goods (allegedly) were seized from his house located at native place Paoni. This house is at a distance of 75 kms. from the place of duty. The stolen goods were also not the property of the petitioner. Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel states that here on the day of alleged offence, the petitioner was on his duty and stolen goods (allegedly) were seized from his house located at native place Paoni. This house is at a distance of 75 kms. from the place of duty. The stolen goods were also not the property of the petitioner. He, therefore, states that alleged misconduct leading to conviction of deceased Respondent No. 1 has no bearing either direct or indirect with the employment. The learned counsel submits that if in such situation, regulation like Regulation 10(a) which only considers a conduct leading to conviction is imported and applied to services of the petitioner, the concept of misconduct understood in Model Standing Orders is itself destroyed. The learned counsel states that the Labour Court has correctly appreciated the position and after applying relevant judgments, the reference has been answered in affirmative. 4. In the light of arguments advanced, the only question to be looked into is whether the petitioner is right in submitting that Regulation 10(a) can prevail over the Scheme dealing with terminal, dismissal, etc. in Model Standing Orders. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs. M.P. Electricity Board (supra) in paras 27 to 30 recognizes and accepts the earlier binding precedents in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board and Anr. vs. Hari Shankar Jain & Ors., reported at AIR 1979 SC 65 and U.P. Electricity Board & Anr. vs. Labour Court (I), U.P., Kanpur & Anr., reported at AIR 1984 SC 1450 . Thus, a inconsistent provision in service regulations framed by Board cannot operate until and unless it is saved by the appropriate Government by issuing notification. In case of Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, such notification is required to be published under Section 13B thereof. It is also not in dispute that in present case, no such notification has been published and Regulations framed by the petitioner Board are thus not saved or exempted. The consideration by the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 31 always shows that the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering applicability of Rule 14A visavis the agreement/ settlement entered into between the parties on 10.06.1996. In para 33, the Hon'ble Apex Court has noted that said agreement expired on 31.03.1999. The consideration by the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 31 always shows that the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering applicability of Rule 14A visavis the agreement/ settlement entered into between the parties on 10.06.1996. In para 33, the Hon'ble Apex Court has noted that said agreement expired on 31.03.1999. The observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 38 show relevant application of mind in this respect. The Hon'ble Apex Court has found that enhanced age of superannuation of members of appellant – association before it was subject to any law operating in the field. In para 39, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed: “It is one thing to say that when there exists a conflict between a regulation made under Section 79(c) of the Act and a certified standing order or a rule made under the 1961 Act, the latter shall prevail, but it is another thing to say that in absence of any statutory provision governing the age of retirement, the statutory regulations framed by the respondent Board shall have no application.” 5. In the light of this finding, the Hon'ble Apex Court has further considered the controversy and concluded that the employer Board before it was empowered to make Regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and Rules providing for duties of officers, their salaries, allowances and other conditions of services. Thus, it is in absence of any statutory provision governing the age of retirement that these observations have been made. In present facts, the provisions of Model Standing Orders hold the field and were in operation when Respondent No. 1 was removed from services. This judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, cannot save the situation for the petitioner. 6. The Reference Court i.e. Labour Court has correctly applied the law on the point. No case is made out warranting interference. Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. The amount of back wages deposited with the Registry of this Court is permitted to be withdrawn by the Legal heirs of deceased Respondent No. 1 after expiry of period of ten weeks along with interest accrued upon it.