U.P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. versus HARL SHANKER JAIN AND ORS.

U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.

HARL SHANKER JAIN AND ORS.

August 28, 1978

[V. R. KRISHNA IYER, D. A. DESAI ·AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.1.J

industrial En1ployn1e111 (Standing Orders), 1946 (Act 20.), S. 138, ,1cope of --11"/iether the provisions of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 prevails over the pro1'isio11s of Industrial E1nploy111cnt (Stan.ding Orders) Act or vice versa-Scopr: of the rule of ejusde111 gencris exp'lained--,\faxi111-Generafis specialibus non dcrogant, applicability of.

]l{cspondents \Vere two workmen originally cn1ployed by Mis Seth Ram (Joyal and Partners, who were licensees for the distribution of electricity under the Electricity Act, 1910. There \Vere certified Sta·nding Orders for the industrial est..1bl1shment of the said licensees; but they did not prescribe any age of superannuation for the employees with the result the workmein could continue to work as long as they were fit and able to discharge their duties. Pursuant to the purchase by the appellant with effect fron1 l 5-12-1964 of the electricity undertnking of M/s S~th Ram Gopal, the employees1 in their industrial esta•blish-ment including the respondents became the employee of the appellant. The appellant board which is admittedly an industrial establishment to which the Indu"·trial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 applies, neither n1ade nor got .::ertified any standing orders as it was· bound so to do under that Act. The Board however considered the certified Standing Orders of the establishment o[ Seth ]~an1 Gopal as applicable to their employees even after the purchase of t.he undertaking by the Board.' Ho\vever, on May 28, 1970 the Governor of Uttar Pradesh notified under Section .13-B of the Industrial En1ployment (Standing Ord~rs) Act, 1946. regula•tion n1ade by the U.P. State Electricity Board under &ct'ion 79( c) of, the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 fixing the age of ~uperannuation as 58 and 60 on par with the other State Govt. employees. Acting in pUr-suance of the regulation as notified by the Governor the appellant sought to retire. lhc respondents on July 2. 1972 and July 7, 1972 respectively 011 Lhcir attaining the age of 58 years. The respondents filed a· Writ "Petition in the Allahllhfld High Court chrillenging the regulation n1aJe by the Board and its notiflc-.1tion by the Governor which tvas disn1issed. But the Division Bench which heard the special appeal preferred by them, referred three Questions to Fnll Rench\ The Full Bench a'lls\vered the questions as folloY/s:

"(.1) The Industrial" Employment (Standing Orders) 1946 applies to the industrial establishment of the Slate Electricity Board.

(2) The Standing Orders framed, in an industrial establishment by an electrical undertaking, do not cease to be operative on the purchase of the undertaking by the Board or on framing of the Regulations under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and

(3) Section 13-B Of the Industrial Employment (Standing O'rders) A.ct. 1946, applies only to the industrial establishn1ents of the Government and to no other establishments .

Following the opinion of the Full Bench, the Division Bench allowed the special Appeal and issued \Vrit quashing the notification dated May 28, 1970 an~ directing the appella-nt :not to enforce the regulation against the respond.::nts. The appellant obtained, certificate under Art. 133(1) of the Constitution anct has preferred the appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD : 1. The Industrial Etnployn1ent (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (Act 20) is special la\V in regard to the n11auers enumerated in the schedule and the regulations n1ade by the Electricity Board with respect to any of those n1atlers are of no effect, unless such regulations are either notified by the Gov-ernn1cnt under Section 13-B or certified by the certifying officer under Section 5 of the Industrial Employment (St11nding Orders) Act, 1946. Tn regard to n1a1ters in respect of whi.ch regulations made by the Board h<1've not been notified by the Governor or in respect of which no regulations have been n1ade by the Board, the lndustiial Employn1ent (Standing Orders) Act shaU continue to apply. Jn the present case, the regulation made by the Board -..vith regard to the age of s11perannua·tion having been duly notified by the Go'!erif-rnent, the regulation s·~all have effect, notwithstanding the fact that it is matter which could be the subject matter of Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act. The responUents were, therefore, properly retired \Vhen they rittaincd the age of 58 years. [37IA-F]

2. The Jndustria·l En1ployment (Standing Orders) Ac1 is an A.ct specially designed to define the terms of employment of workmen in indu..,tria\ establish-ment, to give the workn1cn collective voice in defining the tern1s of ernploy-n1ent and to subject the ten11s of en1ployn1ent to the scrutiny of quasi-judicial authorities by the application of the test of fairness and reasonableness. It is an Act giving recognition and hard-"'on and precious right of \VOrkmen. It is Special Act expressly a·nd exclusively dealing v .. rith the schedu:ie-eilun1erated conditinns of service of ~~'orkn1en in industrial establishments. [364E-G]

Asso(;iatcd Cenient Co. Ltd. v. P. D. T7yas, [1960] 2 S.C.R. 974; Rohtak Rissar District Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. anr! Ors., [1966] 2 S.C.R. 863; 1.Yestern India lvlatch Co. Ltd. v. Work111e11, [19741 l S.C.R. 434; referred to.

3. The Electricity S'upply Act does not presume to be an Act to regulate the conditions of service of the cn1ployees of State Electricity Board. It i~ an act to regulate the coordina·ted development of electricity. It is special Act in regard to the subject of development of electricity, even as the Industrial En1ployment (Standing Orders) Act is ·a special act in regard to the subject ot conditions of service of 'vorkmen in industrial establishments. If section 79 of the Electricity Supply Act generally provides for the n1aking of regulations providing for the conditions of service of the employees of the Board, it can only be regarded as general provision \Vhich n1u:.t yield to the spcci;ll. provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act in respect· of matters covered by the latter Act. [365D-F]

4. The reason for the rule "Generalis Specialibus non derogant'', that general provision should yield to specific provision is this : In passing ·a special Act, Parliament devotes its en!ire consideration to at particular subject. When

General Act. is subsequently passed, it is logical to presun1e that Parliament has not repealed or modified the former special Act unless it appears that the Special Act agJin 1eceived consideration from Parliament, [366B-Dl

The provisions of the Standing Orders Act, therefore, must prevail over Section 79(c) of the Electricity Supply Act in regard to matters to which the Standing Orders Act applies. It is impossible to conceive that Parlian1ent sought to abrogate the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, embodying as they do hard-won and precious rights of \VOrkmen a·nd prescribing as they do an elaborate procedure, including quasi-judicial determination, by general, incidental provision like_ Section 79(c) of the Electricity Supply Act. lt is obvious that Parliament did not have before it the Standing Orders Act, when it paBsed the Electricity Supply Act and Parliament never meant that the Standing Orders Act should stand pro tanto repealed by Section 79(cJ of -the Electricity Supply r\ct. [366F-H]

Suk!zdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram, [1975] 3 S.C.R. 619; Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal, [1967) 3 S.C.R. 277; held inapplicable.

5. The true scope of the rule of "ejusde1n generis" is that words of general nature following specific a·nd particular \vords should be so construed as limited to things \Vhich are of the same nature as those specified. ~ut the~rule is one '\Vhich has to be "applied with caution and not pushed too far". It i-; rule which must be confined to narro\v bounds so as not to unduly or unnccessririly limit general and comprehensive words. If broadwbased gc.nus could consis-tently be discovered there is no \Varrant .t.o cut down general \VOrds to dwarf -size. lf giant it cannot be, dwa.rf it need not be. [369 A-BJ

It is true that in Section 13-B the specie specifically n1entioned happen to .be Government servants. But they also possess this common characteristic that they are all public servnnts enjoying statutory status and governed: by statutory nJ!es and regulations. .If the legislature intended to confine the applicability of. Section 13-B to industrial undertakings employing governn1ent servants only nothing \vas easier than to say so instead of referring to various rules specitica liy ::incl follo\ving it up with general expression like the one, in the insrnnt case. [369B-DJ 6. The \vords 'rules and regulations' have con1e to acquire a· special meaning when used in statutes. They are used to describe subordinate legi:Slation made ·1~y authorities to \vhom the statute delegates that function. The \VOrds can have 110 other meaning in Sec. 13-B. Therefore, the expression '\vorkmen ... to ·whom ... any other rules or regulations that nla-y be notified in this beharf means, in the context of Sec. 13-B, workmen enjoying statutory status, in respect of \vhose conditions of service the relevant statute authorises the making ·Of rules or regulations. The expression cannot be construed so narrowly as to mean Government servants only; nor can it be constn1ed so broadly as to mean workmen employed by \Vhomsoever including private employers. so long as their .conditions of service are notified by the Govt. under Sec. 13-B [369D-F]

The \VOrds 'nothing in this Act shall apply' are not to be interpreted too fitcrally as to lead to absurd results. The only reasonable construction that .can be put upon the language of Section 13-B is that rule of regulation, it

notified by the Government, will exclude the applicability of the Act to the extent th:it the rule or regulation covers the field. To that extent land to that extent C1nh' "nothing in the Act shall apply". [307 F-G]

Rania// 1\la111bis.1·(111 1·. State Electricity Board [19671 I L.L.J. 252 and Thinn·cnkataswan1i v. Coitnbatore Mu11icipnlity, [1968] 1 L.LJ. 361 explained.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2199 of 1977. From the Judgment and Decree dated 29-11-1976 of the Allaha .. bad High Court in Special Appeal No. 378 of 1974.

G. B. Pai and 0. P. Rana for the Appellant.

R. K. Garg, V. J. Francis, Madan Mohan, K .P. Aggarwal and Mrs. Manju Gupla, for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

Manoi Swamp and Miss Lalita Kohli for the Intervener.

The J udgmcnt of the Court was delivered by

CHJNNAPPA REDDY, J. The case is primarily concerned with the age of retirement of two obscure workmen but it raises questions of general importance concerning workmen employed by most statutory bodies and corporations. It is on such chance cases that the develop-ment ol' our law depends. The two workmen were originally employed by Messrs Seth RGm Gopal and Partners who were licensees for the distribution of electri-E city under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. There were certified Starn.ling Orders for the industrial establishment of M/s. Seth Ram Gopal and partners. The certified Standing Orders did not prescribe ony age of superannuation for the employees. That, according to the· workmen, meant that they could continue to work as Jong as they were fit and able to discharge their duties. The electricity undertJbng of M/s. Seth Ram Gopal and Partners was purchased by the U.I'. State Electricity Board, with effect from 15-12-J 964, under the prnvi-sions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The employees of Seth Ram Gopal and Partners became the employees of the U.P. State Electricity Board. The U.P. State Electricity Board, which it i.\ no longer disputed is an industrial establishment to which the Industrial' Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, applies, neither made nor got certified any Standing Orders as it was bound so to do under that Act. But it is evident, though not' admitted from two letters, one from the Superintending Engineer in reply to Jetter dated 31-12-1966 from th<l Executive Engineer and the other from the Certifying Officer for Standing Orders and Labour Commissioner to the General Secre-tary of the Employees' Union that the Board and the workmen consi-dered the certified Standing Orders of the establishment of Seth Ram

Gopal ;ind Partners as applicable to them even after the purchase of the undertaking by the Board. This, however, is not very material. Tlie Board, as we said earlier, made and got certified no standing orders either in regard to age of superannuation or in regard to llDY other matter mentioned in the schedule to the Standing Orders Act. . We may mention here that by reason of notification dated 17-11-1959 '"age of superannuation or retirement, rate of pension or any other fadlity which the employers may like to extend or may be agreed upon between the parties" is one of the matters in respect ol which an employer to whom the Standing Orders Act applies is bound to make Standing Orders and get them certified. However, on May 28, 1970. the Governor of U!tar Pradesh notified, under Section U-B of tl1c Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, regulation made hy the U.P. State Electricity Board under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The notification was as foliows:

"No. 3822-2/70/XXIIJ-PB-15EH-67

May 28, 1970.

Jn pursuance of the provision of Section 13-13 o! the Industrial Employment' (Standing Orders) Act 1946 .(Act No. 20 of 1946), the Governor is pleased to notify in !be official Gazette that the U.P. State Electricity Board has made the following Regulations under sub-section ( c) of Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply Act, 1948) (Act l'-<·o. 54 of 1948)-

"Not\vithstanding any rule if one order or practice hitherto followed, the date of compulsory retirement of an employee of the Board will be the date 011 which he attains the age of 58 years; provided that-

(i) in the case of the inferior servants of the Board, \V'hosc counterparts under State Govcrnn1ent are at present entitled to serve upto the age of 60 years, the age of com-pulsory retirement will be the date 011 which they attain the age of 60 years.

(ii) the Board or its subordinate appointing authority niay require an employee to retire after he attains or has attained the age of 55 year, on three months' notice or three months' salary in Jicu thereof without as~igning any rerison". Acting in pursuance of this regulation as notified by tile Governor, the Board sought to retire the two respondents on July 2, 1972 and July 7, 1972 respectively on their attaining the age of 58 years. The res-pondents thereupon filed writ petition in the Allahabad High Court chrille.nging the regulation n1ade l1y the. Board an<l its notification by

the Governor. Their contention was that the Board was not compe-tent to make regulation in respect of matter covered by the Indus-trial Employment (Standing Orders) Act. The writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge. The respondents preferred special appeal and the Division Bench which heard the Special Appeal in the first instance referred the following three questions to Full Bench :

" ( 1) Whether the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 applies to the Industrial establislummts of the State Electricity Board ?

(2) Whether the standing orders framed for an Industrial cstablishnient of an electrical undertaking cease to be opera-tive on the purchase of the undertaking by the Eoard or on the framing of regulations under section 79 ( c) of the Elev-tricity (Supply) Act, 1948?

(3) Whether section 13-B of the Industrial Emplo)-ment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, applies only to indus-trial establishments of the Government or also to otl>er industrial establishments ?

The Full Bench answered the questions as follows:

"1. The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946 applies to the industrial establishments of the State Electricity Board.

2. The Standing Orders framed in an industrial c>la-hlishment by an electrical undertaking do not cease to be operative on the purchase of the undertaking by the Board or on framing of the regulations under section 79 ( j o[ the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. 3. Section 13-B of the Industrial Employment (Stand-ing Orders) Act, 1946, applies only to the industrial esta-blishments of the government and to no other establish-ments". Following the opinion of the Full Bench, the Division Bench allowed the Special Appeal and issued Writ quashing the notificatioll dated May 28, 1970 and directing the U.P. State Electricity Board not to enforce the regulation against the appellants before them. The U.P. State Electricity Board, having obtained Certificate from the High Court under Article 133(1) of the Constitution, has preferred this ·appeal.

Shri G. B. Pai learned Counsel for the appellaut did not canvass the correctness of the answer of the Full Bench to the first question iefrrred to it. He confined his attack to the answers to the second and third questions. Relying upon the decisions of thi' Court in S'ukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram('), and Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal('), Shri Pai argued that the U.P. State Electricity Board was an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and that the regulations made by the Boa.rd .under Section 79(c) of the Act had the 'full force and effect of the statute and the force of law" so as to displace, over-ride or supersede Standing Orders made and certified under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, which, he submitted were mere contractual conditions of service sub-jected to quasi-judicial process and which, therefore; could not tak" precedence over legislative processed regulations. The learned Coun-sel further submitted that Section 79(c) of the E!cctricity Supply Act was special law and that it prevailed over the provisions ol the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act. Alternately, he sub-mitted, the notifying of the regulation regarding age of superannua-tion under Section 13-B of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act excluded the applieahility of that Act in regard to the subject of age of superannuation. He urged that Seeton 13-B was not confmcd in its application to (Jovernn1ent undertakings only or to cases where there were comprehesinve sets of rules, as was thought by the High Court.

Shri R. K. Garg, for the Workmen contended that the lndustrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act was an act specially designed to define and secure reasonable conditions of service for work1nen in industrial establishments employing one hundred or more workmen and to that end to compel employers to make Standing Orders and to ret them certified by quasi-judicial authority. It was, therefore, special Act with reference to its subject matter. The Electricity Supply Act, on the other hand, was intended "to provide for the rationalisation of the production and supply of electricity, and gene-rally for taking measures conducive to electrical development." It was not specially designed to define the conditions of service of empolyees of Electricity Board or to displace the Standing Orders Act. The power given to an Electricity Board under Section 79 ( c) to make regulations providing for "the duties of officers and servants of the Board and their salaries, allowances and other conditions of ser-vice" was no more than the usual, general power possessed by every

(1) [1975] 3 SCR 619.

(2) [19671 3 SCR 377.

employer. Shri Garg argued that the Industrial Employment St<uid-ing Orders Act was special Act which dealt with the special subject of conditions of employment of workmen in industrial establishments and, therefore, in the matter of conditions of employment u[ work-men in industrial establishments, it prevailed over the provisiops of the Electricity Supply Act. He urged that under Sect1un 13-13 of the Standing Orders Act, Government undertakings which had com-prehensive set of rules alone could he excluded from the applicabi111y of the Act. Me submitted that to permit single rule or regulation made for limited purpose to be notified under Sec. 13-B would have the disastrous effect of excluding the applicability of the whole of the Standing Orders Act.

Before examining the rival contentions, we remind oursdvos 1hat the Constitution has expressed deep concern for the welfare of workers and has provided in Art. 42 that the State shall make provi-sion for securing just and humane conditions of work and in Art. 4 3 that the State shall endeavour to secure, by suitable icgislation or eco-nomic organisation or in any other \Vay, to all workers, agricultural, industrial or otherwise, work, living wage, conditions oi. \VorK ensur-ing decent st'andard of life and full enjoyment of kisurc etc. Tbesc ore among the "Directive Principles of State Policy". The mandate cf Article 37 of the Constitution is that while the Dircciivc Principles 0! State Policy shall not be enforceable by any Court, the principles are 'neverthe1ess fun<lan1cntal in the governance of the country' and '!t shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles i11 making laws' . . .\ddressed to Courts, \Vhat the injunction n1cans is that while Couns are not free to direct the inaking of legislation: Courts are bound to evolve, affir1n and adopt principles of interpretation \vliich vviH further and not hinder the goals set out in the Directive Principles of St<1lc Policy. This command of the Constitution must be ever present in the n1inds of judges when interpreting statutes which cvnccrn thcn1-sclves directly or indirectly \:Vith n1atters set out in the Directive Pri111.:i-plcs ~f State Policy.

Let us riow cxan1in~ the various Statutory provisions in their proper context with view to resolve the problem before us. First, the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act. 1946. Before the passing of 'the Act conditions of service of industrial cnip!oyces· were invariably ill defined and were hardly ever known with even slight degree of precision to the employees. There was no uniformiti' of conditions of service for employees discharging identical duties in n the same establish~1ent. Conditions of service were generally ad-hoc and the result of oral arrangements which left the employees at the n1ercy of the employer. With the growth of the trade union n1ovc-

men! and the right of collective bargaining, employees started putting forth their demands to end this sad and confusing state of affairs. Recognising the rough deal that was being given lo workers by employers who would not define their conditions of service and the inevitability of industrial strife in such situation, !he legislature inter-vened and enacted the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act. It was stated in the statement of objects and reasons;

"Experience has shown that "Standing Orders" defining the conditions of recruitment, discharge, disciplinary action, holidays, leave etc., go long way towards ln111nn1s1ng friction between the management and workers in industrial undertakings. Discussion on the subject at the tripartite Indian Labour Conferences revealed consensus of opinion in favour of legislation. The Bill accordingly seeks to pro-vide for the framing of "Standing Orders" in all industilal establishments employing one hundred and more workers". It was, therefore, considered, as stated in the preamble "expedient to require employers in industrial establishments to define with su1licicnt precision the conditions of employment under them and to make the said conditions known to workmen employed by them". The scheme of the Act, as amended in 1956 and as it now stands, requires every employer of an industrial establishment as defined in the Act to submit to the Certifying Officer draft Standing Orders, that is, "Rules relating to matters set out in the schedule", proposed by him for adoption in his industrial establishment. This is mandatory. It has to be done within six months after the commencement of the Act. Failure to do so is punishable and is further made continuing offence. The draft Standing Orders are required to cover every matter set out in tlie schedule. The schedule enumerates the matters to be provided in the Standing Orders and they include classification of workmen, shift working, attendance and late corning. Leave and holidays, termina-tion of employment, suspension or dismissal for misconduct, means of redress for wronged workmen etc. Item No. 11 of the Schedule is "Any other matter which may be prescribed". By notification dated 17-11-1959 the Government of Uttar Prade.sh has prescribed "Age of superannuation or retirement, rate of pension or any other faci1ity which the employer may like to extend or may be agreed upon between the parties" as matter requiring to be provided in the Standing Orders. On receipt of the draft Standing Oders from the employee, the Certifying Officer is required to forward copy of the same to the trade union concerned or the workmen inviting them to prefer oujec-tions, if any. Thereafter the Certifying Officer is required to give hear-ing to the employer and the trade union or workmen as the case may be 7--526 SCT/78

and to decide "whether or not any modification of or addition to the draft submitted by the e!nployer is necessary to render the draft Standing Orders certifiable under the Act'. Standing Orders are certifiable under the Act only if provision is made therein for every matter set out in the schedule, if they are in conformity with the provisions of the Act and if the Certifying Officer adjudicates them as fair and reason-n able. The Certifying Officer is invested with the powers of Civil Court for the purposes of receiving evidence, administering oaths, enforcing the attendance of witnesses etc. etc. The order of the Certi-fyi_ng Officer is subject to an appeal to the prescribed app".llate authority. The Standing Orders as finally certified are required to be entered in Register maintained by the Certifying Officer. The employer is required to prominently post the Certified Standing Orders on special boards maintained for that purpose. This is the broad scheme of the Act. The Act also provides for exemptions. About that, later. The Act, as origi-n~lly enacted, precluded the Certifying Officer from adjudicating upon the fairness or reasonableness of the draft Standing Orders submitted by the employer but an amendment introduced in 1956 now casts duty upon the Certifying Officer to adjudicate upon the fairness or reasonable-ness of the Draft Standing Orders. The Scheme of the Act has been sufficiently explained by this Court in Associated Ce111e111 Co. Ltd. v. P. D. Vyas('), Rohtak Hissar District Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors.('), and Western India -Match Co. Ltd. v. Work-E men('). The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act is thus seen to be an Act specially designed to define the terms of employment of workmen in industrial establishments, to give the workmen collective voice in defining the terms of employment and to subject the terms of employment to the scrutiny of quasi--judicial authorities by the application of the test of fairness and reasonableness. It is an Act giving recognition and form to hard-won and precious rights of workmen. We have no hesitation iu saying that it is Special Act exp~essly and exclusively dealing with the schedule-enumerated con-ditions of service of workmen in industrial establishments.

Turning next to the Electricity Supply Act, it is, as its preamble says. An Act to provide for the rationalisation of the production and supply of electricity, and generally for taking _measures conducive to electrical development". The statement of objects and reasons and glance at the various provisions of the Act show that the primary object

(I) [1960] 2 SCR 974

(2) [1966] 2 SCR 863

(3) [1974] I SCR 434

of the Act is to provide for the coordinated, efficient and economic development of electricity in India on regional basis consistent with the needs of the entire region including semi-urban and rural areas. Chapter II of the Act provides for the constitution of the Central Elec-tricity Authority and Chapter III for the constitution of State Electricity Boards. Chapter IV prescribes the powers and duties of State Electri-city Boards, and Chapter V the Boards' works and trading procedure. Chapter VI deals with the Board's finance, Accounts and Audit. Chap-ter VII (from S. 70 to S. 83) which is headed "Miscellaneous" con-tains varjous miscellaneous provisions amongst which are S. 78 which empowers the Government to make rules and S. 79 which empowers the Board to make regulations in respect of matters specified in clauses (a) to (k) of that Section. Clause (c) of S. 79 is "the duties of Offi-cers and servants of the Board, and their salaries, allowances and other conditions of service". This, of course is no n1ore than the orcHnary general power, with which every employer is invested in the first ins-tance, to regulate the conditions of service of his employees. It is an ancillary or incidental power of every employer. The Electricity Supply Act does not presume to be an Act to regulate the conditions of service of the employees of State Electricity Boards. It is an act to regulate the coordinated development of electricity. It is special Act in regard to the subject of development of electricity, even as the Industrial Em-ployment (Standing Ord<ers) Act is speci~I Act in regard to the subject of Conditions of Service of workmen in industrial establishments. If Sec. 79(c) of the Electricity Supply Act generally provides for the mak-ing of regulations providing for the conditions of service of the em-ployees of the Board, it can only be regarded as general provision which must yie.ld to the special provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act in respect of matters covered by the latter Act.

The maxim "Generalia specialibus non deroganf' is quite well known. The rule flowing from the maxim has been explained in Mary Seward v. The Owner of the "Vera Cruz"(') as follows :

"Now if anything be certain it is this, that where there are general words in later Act capable of reasonable and sensible application without extending them to subjects specially dealt with by earlier legislation, you are not to hold that earlier and special legislation indirectly repealed, altered, · or derogated from merely by force of such genera1 words, without any indication of particular intention to do so".

(l) [ 1884] 10 AC 59 at 68.

The question in Seward v. Vera Cruz was whether Sec. 7 of the Admi-ralty Court Act of 1861, which gave jurisdiction to that Court over "any claim for damage done by any ship" also gave jurisdiction over claims for Joss of life which would otherwise come under the Fatal Acci-dents Act. It was held that the general words of Sec. 7 of the Admiralty Court Act did not exclude the applicability of the Fatal Accidents Act and therefore, the Admiralty Court had no jurisdiction to entertain claim for damages for loss of life.The reason for the rule that general provision should yield to specific provision is this : In passing Special Act, Parliament devotes its entire consideration to particular subject. When General Act is subsequently passed, it is logical to presume that Parliament has not repealed or modified the former Special Act unless it appears that the Special Act again received consideration from Parliament. Vide London and Blackwall Railway v. Limehouse District Board of Works(') and Thorpe v. Adams('). In J. K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh('), this Court observed (at p. 1174)

"The rule that general provisions should yield to specific provisions is not an arbitrary principle made by lawyers and judges but springs from the common understanding of men and women that when the same person gives two directions one covering large number of matters in general and an-other to only some of them his intention is that these latter directions should prevail as regards these while as regards all the rest the earlier direction should have effect''.

We have already shown that the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act is Special Act dealing with Specific subject, namely the conditions of service, enumerated in the Schedule, of workmen in industrial establishments. It is impossible to conceive that Parliament sought to abrogate the provisions of the In-dustrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act embodying as they do hard-won and precious rights of workmen and prescribing as they do an elaborate procedure, including quasi-judicial determination, by genera!, incidental provision like Sec. 79 ( c) of the Electricity Supply Act. It is obvious that Parliament did not have before it the Standing Orders Act when it passed the Electricity Supply Act and Parliament never meant that the Standing Orders Act should ~tand pro tanto re-pealed by Sec. 79(c) of the Electricity Supply Act. We are clearly of the view that the provisions of the Standing Orders Act must prevail over S. 79(c) of the Electricity Supply Act, in regard to matters to which the Standing Orders Act applies.

(1) 26 L. J. Ch. 164 ~ 69 E.R. 1048. (2) (1871) L. R. 6 C. P. 125

(3) A.!. R. 1961 S. C. 1170.

Shri G. B. Pai, relying on what was said in the Rajasthan State Electricity Board case and Sukhdev Singh & Ors.'s case argued that the regulations made under Sec. 79(c) of the Electricity Supply Act being statutory in nature stood on so high pedestal as to override, by their very nature, the ·standing Orders made under the Standing Orders Act. The observations on which he relied are, in the Rajasthan State Elec-tricity Board case :

"The State, as defined in Art. 12, is thus comprehended to include bodies created for the purpose of promoting the educational and economic interests of the people. The State, as constituted by our Constitution, is further specifically empowered under Art. 298 to carry on any trade or business: The circumstance that the Board under the Electricity Supply Act is required to carry on some activities of the nature of trade or commerce 'does not, therefore, give any indication that the Board must be excluded from the scope of the word "State" as used in Art. 12. On the other hand, there are provisions in the Electricity Supply Act which clearly show that the powers conferred on the Board include power to give directions, the disobedience of which is punishable as criminal offence. In these circumstances, we do not consider it at all necessary to examine the cases cited by Mr. Desai to urge before us that the Board cannot be held to be an agent' or instrument of the Government. The Board was clearly an anthority to, which the provisions of Part III of the Constitution were applicable".

and in Sukhdev Singh's case (at p. 627) :

"Rules, regulations, schemes, Bye-laws, orders made under statutory powers are all comprised in delegated legis-lation"

(at p. 628)

"Subordinate legislation has, if validly made, the full force and effect of statute" .

and (at p. 684-685)

"Rules and Regulations of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Life Insurance Corporation, Industrial Finance Corporation have the force of law .

The employees of these statutory bodies have statutory status and they are entitled to declaration of being in employment when their dismissal or removal is in contraven-tion of statutory 'provisions.

These statutory bodies are authorities within the mean-ing of Art. 12 of the Constitution".

The proposition that Statutory Bodies are 'authorities' within the meaning of Art. 12 of the, Constitution, that the employees of these bodies have statutory status and that regulations made under the statutes creating these bodies have the force of law are not in dispute before us. The question is not whether the employees and the Board have statutory status; they undoubtedly have. The question is not whether the regulations made under Sec. 79 have the force of law; again, they undoubtedly have. The question is whether Sec. 79 ( c) of the Electricity Supply Act is general law and therefore, regulations cannot be made under it in respect of matters covered by the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, special law. That question we have answered and the answer to that question makes irrelevant the submissions based on the statutory status of the employees and the statutory force of the regulations.

Next, we turn to the submission based on the notification made under Sec. 13-B of the Standing Orders Act. Section 13-B reads as follows :

"13B. Nothing .in this Act shall apply to an industrial establishment in so far as the workmen employed therein are persons to whom the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules, Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules; Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, Revised Leave Rules, Civil Service Regulations, Civilians in Defence· Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules or the Indian Railway Establishment Code or any other rules or regulations that may be notified in this behalf by the appropriate Govermnent in the Official Gazette, apply".

The notification made by the Government has already been extracted by us. Some doubts were expressed whether the U.P. State Electricity Board had in fact made the regulation and whether the Government merely notified the regulation without appyling its mind. The learned counsel appearing for the Board and the Government placed before us the relevant records and note-files and we are satisfied that the Board did make the regulation and the Government did apply its mind.

The High Court expressed the views that the expression "any other rules or regulations" should be read ejusdem generis with the expres-sions "Fundamental and Supplementary Rules", "Civil Services, Con-trol, Classification and Appeal Rules" etc. So read, it was said, the provisions of Section 13-B could only be applied to industrial establish-

ments in which the workmen employed could properly be described as Government servants. We are unable to agree that the application of the ejusdem generis rule leads to any such result. The true scope oi the rule of "ejusdem generis" is that words of general nature following specific and particular words should be construed as limited to things which are of the same nature as those specified. But the rule is one which has to be "applied with caution and not pushed too far". It is rule which must be confined to narrow bounds so as not to unduly or unnecessarily limit general and comprehensive words. If broad-based genus could consistently be discovered, there is no warrant to cut down general words to dwarf size. If giant it cannot be, dwarf it need not be. It is true that in Sec. 13_-B the specie spcci~ fically mentioned happen to be Government servants. But they also possess this common characteristic that they are all public servants enjoying statutory status, and governed by s(atutory rules and regu-lations. If the legislature intended to confine the applicability of Sec. 13-B to industrial undertakings employing Government servants only nothing was easier than to say so instead of referring to various rules specifically and following it up with general expression like the one before us. The words 'rules and regulations' have come to acquire special meaning when used in statutes. They are used to describe subordinate legislation made by authorities to whom the statute dele-gates that function. The words can have no other meaning in Sec. 13-B. Therefore, the expression "workmen .... to whom ..... any othe-r rules or regulations that may be notified in this behalf means, in the context of Sec. 13-B, workmen enjoying statutory status, in res-pect of whose conditions al' service the relevant statute authorises the making of rules or regulations. The expression cannot be construed so narrowly as to mean Government servants only; nor can it be cons-trued so broadly as to mean workmen employed by whomsoever including private employers, so long as their conditions of service are notifie<l by the Government under Sec. 13-B.

Slm Garg relied on certain observations of the Madras High Court in Raman Nambissan v. State Electricity Board('), and Thiruvenkata-swami v. Coimbatore Municipality('). In Raman Nambissmz's case it was held that the mere fact that the Electricity Board had adopted the rules and regulations of the Government of Madras as its transitory rules and regulations did not bring the workmen employed in indus-trial establishments under the Board within the mischief of Sec. 13-B of the Industrial Establishment's (Standing Ordet) Act. In Thiru · venkataswami' s ca·se it was held that mies made by the Government

(I) [1967] 1 L.L.J. 252.

(2) [1968] 1 L.L.J. 361

under the District Municipalities Act could not be considered to be rules notified u:idfr See. 13-B of the Standing Orders Act merely because the rules were made by the Government and published in the Government Gazette. We agree with the conclusion in both cases. In Thiruvenkataswami's case Kailasam J., also observed that the Industrial ~mployment (Standing Order) Act was a· special act relating exclusively to the service conditions of persom employed in industrial establishments, and, therefore, its provision~ prevailed over lhe provisions of the District Municipalities Act. We entirely agree. Bul, the learned judge went on to• say "S. 13-B cannot be availed of for purposes of framing rules to govern the relationships in an indus-c trial establishment under private management or in Statutory Cor-poration. This rule can apply only to· industrial establishments in respect of which the Government is authorised to frame rules and regu-lations relating to the conditions of employment in industrial establish-ments". There we disagree. Our disagreement is only in regard to induslrial establishment in Statutory Corporations a11d not those under private management. Our reasons are mentioned in the previous paragraph.

Shri Garg suggested that the rules. and regulations specific mention of which has been made in Sec. 13-B were all comprehensive sets o! rules and, therefore, "any other rules or regulations" that might be notified by the Government should also satisfy the test of comprehensi-E veness. He argued that single rule or regulation could not be noti-fied under Sec. 13-B as it would be too much to say, he said, that the notifying of single rule or regulation would exclude the applicability of all the provisions of the Standing Orders Act. We do not think that the notifying of one or many regulations has the effect that Shri Garg apprehends it has. The words 'Nothing in this Act shall apply' are net to be interpreted too literally as to lead to absurd results and to what the legislature never intended. In our view the only reason-able construction that we can put upon the language of Sec. 13-B is that rule or regulation, if notified by the Government,. will exclude the applicability of the Act to the extent that the rule or regulation e-0vers the field. To that extent and to that extent only 'nothing in the Act shall apply'. To understand Sec. 13B in any other manner will lead to unjust and uncontemplated results. For instance, most of the· Service Rules and Regulations expressly mentioned in Sec. 13-B do not deal with large number of the matters enumerated in the schedule such as 'Manner of intimating to workmen periods and hour n of work, holidays, pay-days and wage rates', 'shift working', 'Atten-dance and late coming', 'conditions of, procedure in applying for, and 1[Je autlwrity which may grant· leave and holidays'. 'Closing and

reopening of Sections of the industrial establishments ana temporary stoppages of work and the rights and liabilities of the employer and workmen arising therefrom' etc. To exclude the applicability of Standing Orders relating to all these matters because the Fundamental Rules, the Civil Service Rules or the Civil Services Control, Classifica-tion- aud Appeal Rules provide for few matters like 'Classification of workmen' or 'suspension or dismissal for misconduct' would be to reverse the processes of history, apart from leading to unjust and un-toward results. It will place workmen once again at the mercy of the employer be he ever so benign and it will certainly promote industrial strife. We have indicated what according to us is the proper cons-truction of Sec. 13-B. That is the only construction which gives meaning and sense to Sec. 13-B and that is construction which can legitimately be said to conform to the Directive Principles of State Policy proclaimed in Articles 42 and 43 of the Constitution.We, therefore, hold that the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act is 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 Sec. 13-B or certified by the Certifying Officer under Sec. 5 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act. In 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 fodustrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act shall continue to apply. In the present case the regulation made by the Board with regard to age of superannuation having been duly notified by the Government, the regulation shal! have effect notwithstanding the fact that it is matter which could be the subject matter o[ Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act. The respon-dents were therefore, properly retired when they attained the age of 58 years. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The Writ Petition fled in the High Court is dismissed. The appellants will pay the costs of the respondents as directed by this Court on 28-9-1977. The costs are quantified at Rs. 3,500/-..

Appeal allowed.