http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12  

PETITIONER: RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: LAXMAN LAL ETC. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT11/10/1990

BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) SAWANT, P.B.

CITATION:  1990 SCR  Supl. (2) 277  1991 SCC  Supl.  (2) 531  1990 SCALE  (2)778

ACT:     Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948/Rajasthan State Electric- ity  Board (Emoluments) Regulation, 1978. Section 79(c)  and (k)  Regulation  79(c)--Meter Reader I/Meter Checker  I  and Meter  Reader II/Meter Checker II--Entitlement to pay  scale as per settlement.

HEADNOTE:     A  settlement  was arrived at on 22.2.1972  between  the Rajasthan State Electricity Board and the Union representing its employees. In pursuance of this settlement, notification dated  22.3.1972 was issued revising the pay-scales of  var- ious categories of posts, effective from 1st April, 1969. As per the settlement, Meter Reader/Meter Checker was mentioned under scale No. 3.     On December 2, 1972 a Second Settlement was entered into between the parties with a view to removing certain ambigui- ties  in the earlier settlement. In this second  Settlement, notified on 6.12.1972, it was agreed to have two  categories of  Meter Readers, that is, Meter Reader I/Meter  Checker  I and  Meter Reader II/Meter Checker II. This  settlement  was made effective w.e.f. 1.4.1968.     Some employees appointed before 6.12.1972 challenged the notification  dated 6.12.1972. The learned Single  Judge  of the  High Court allowed the writ petitions and  quashed  the notification mainly on the ground that the Second Settlement could not have been made as no conciliation proceedings were pending  before  the second settlement. The  Division  Bench dismissed  the appeal filed by the Board.  Accordingly,  the Board implemented the Judgment of the High Court and  issued orders  to  provide  scale No. 3 to all  the  Meter  Readers appointed upto 6.12.1972.     Brijlal v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board, [1979] WLN (UC) 221, referred to.     During  this  period,  the State  Electricity  Board  in exercise of the powers conferred by section 79,  sub-section (c)  and  (k)  of the Electricity (Supply)  Act,  1948  made regulations which are cared Rajasthan State 278 Electricity Board Employees (Emoluments) Regulations,  1978. These Regulations were made applicable retrospectively  from 1st  April,  1974. Under these regulations,  post  of  Meter

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12  

Reader II/Meter Checker II was mentioned in scale No. 2.     In  1979,  an arbitration award was  given  between  the Board  and  the union under which two  categories  of  Meter Readers/Meter Checkers were again made.     Subsequently, 35 employees appointed between the  period 197279  filed the present writ petitions in the High  Court. The stand taken by these employees was that the Notification dated  6.12.1972 had already been quashed by the High  Court and as such they were to be governed by the First Settlement dated February 22, 1972 in which there was only one category of  Meter Reader/Meter Checker to whom pay-scale No.  3  had been given and as such they were also entitled to  pay-scale No. 3. The High Court allowed the writ petitions and granted pay-scale  No. 3 to all the petitioners. The Division  Bench dismissed the special appeal of the Board. The Board has now come  before  this  Court against such  employees  who  were appointed after 1.4.1974.     The contentions of the Board before this Court were that (i)  even if for arguments’ sake the earlier decision  given by  the High Court may be considered as final, that  was  in respect  of  the  employees who were  appointed  before  6th December,  1972;  (ii) as regards the present  employees  no benefit could be granted in their case as the First  Settle- ment  itself was to remain in force upto 31st  March,  1974; (iii) in any case in the appointment orders of the  respond- ents  it was clearly mentioned that they were  appointed  as Meter  Reader/Meter Checkers Gr. II in the pay-scale No.  2; and  (iv)  under the Rajasthan State  Electricity  Employees (Emoluments)  Regulations 1978, which were  made  applicable from  1st April, 1974 Meter Reader-II/Meter Checker II  have been  placed  in pay scale No. 2  and  Meter-Reader  I/Meter Checker I have been placed in pay-scale No. 3.     On behalf of the employees-respondents it was  connected that (i) though according to Clause IX of the First  Settle- ment  dated 22.2.1972 the settlement was to remain in  force till 31st March, 1974 yet the same would remain in operation until  the  expiry of two months from the date  on  which  a notice  in writing of an intention to terminate the  settle- ment  was given by one of the parties to the other party  or parties to the settlement as provided under sub-section  (2) of  Section  19 of the Industrial Disputes Act,  1947;  (ii) that an arbitration award was given in 1979 279 between  the Board and the employees federation under  which two  categories of Meter Readers/Meter Checkers  were  again made  and  hence all the Meter Readers appointed  upto  1979 before  the arbitration award were entitled to scale No.  3, and (iii) the contention with regard to the first settlement having  come  to  an end on March 31, 1974 as  well  as  the contention  raised on the basis of Regulations were  rightly negatived  by the Division Bench of the High Court as  these points  were  not taken in the writ petitions and  were  not argued before the learned Single Judge. Allowing the appeals, this Court,     HELD: (1) The respondents/employees in the present  case want to take advantage of the First Settlement simply on the ground   that  it  did  not  make  any  mention   of   Meter Reader/Meter Checker Gr. I or II and it simply made  mention of  Meter Reader/Meter Checker to whom pay scale No.  3  was given.  The  above ambiguity was clarified by  an  agreement between  the Board and the Union representing the  employees as  early  as on 2.12.1972 itself to the effect  that  Meter Reader/Meter  Checker  could  be  placed  in  two  different grades. After this there was no restriction on the Board  to make appointment of the Meter Reader/ Meter Checker in Grade

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12  

II after 1.4.1974. [290B-C]     (2) There was clear mention in the appointment orders of the   respondents   that  they  were  appointed   as   Meter Readers/Meter  Checkers Gr. II in pay-scales No. 2.  Learned Counsel  for the respondents/employees were unable  to  show that the Board had no power to make such appointments of the Meter Reader/Meter Checker in Gr. II. [290D]     (3) The Board had already taken the stand that the first settlement  was  clarified by the second settlement  and  as such  even if the High Court had quashed the second  settle- ment, it was at least a sufficient notice within the meaning of  section  19(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act  that  the Board  had terminated the first settlement after  31.3.1974. [290E]     The Life Insurance Corporation of India v. D.J.  Bahadur JUDGMENT:     (4)  The Rajasthan State Electricity Board  (Emoluments) Regulation, 1978 made in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec. 79 Subsections (c) and (k) of the Electricity  (Supply) Act,  1948  have  statutory force and it  has  been  clearly mentioned  that they shall be deemed to have been  made  ap- plicable from 1st April, 1974. The Board had set up 280 their case in the reply to the writ petition on the basis of these Regulations and it was the duty of the Division  Bench of the High Court to have looked into the reply filed by the Board and to decide the effect of such statutory regulations in the present case. [291D-E]     (5) The High Court committed a serious error in ignoring clause IX of the First Settlement dated 22.2.1972 as well as the Regulations made by the Board in 1978. [291H]

&     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2917  of 1985. WITH Civil Appeal Nos. 2900-2901, 2903--2916 of 1985 and  2918-21 of 1985.     From  the Judgment and Order dated  21.5.1984  (Judgment pronounced on 2.7. 1984) of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 172 of 1984.     Dr.  L.M. Singhvi, Sushil Kumar Jain, Shahid Rizvi,  Dr. D.K.  Singh,  Pradeep Agarwal, Pratibha Jain  and  Sudhanshu Atreya for the Appellants.     Rajinder  Singhvi, M.R. Singhvi and Surya Kant  for  the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     KASLIWAL,  J. All these civil appeals by  special  leave are  directed  against the Judgments of the  Rajasthan  High Court  dated  May  11, 1984, May 21, 1984  and  the  reasons whereof  pronounced on 2.7. 1984. Controversy raised in  all these cases is whether the respondents are entitled to  pay- scale No. 2 or pay-scale No. 3.      The Government of India vide its Resolution dated  20th May,  1966 constituted a General Wage Board for  electricity undertakings for evolving wage structure, specialisation  of nomenclature and job description. The recommendations of the said Wage Board were accepted by the Government of India  in July,  1970. The Prantiya Vidyut Mandal  Mazdoor  Federation (in  short  the Federation) recognised trade  union  of  the employees of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board presented their demands before the Labour Department of the 281

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12  

Government of Rajasthan for implementation of the  recommen- dations of the Wage Board. While the said industrial dispute between  the management of the Board and its  employees  was pending  before the Conciliation Officer, a  settlement  was arrived  at  on  February 22. 1972. By  this  agreement  the parties  agreed  that the existing scale of pay  of  various categories of posts would be revised w.e.f. 1st April, 1969. The  schedule of the said agreement set out various  catego- ries  of  posts under different pay-scales. At  St.  No.  21 Meter  Reader/Meter Checker was mentioned under scale No.  3 i.e. Rs. 126-8-150-10-250. In pursuance to the above settle- ment the Board issued a notification dated 22nd March,  1972 revising  the pay-scales of its employees w.e.f. 1st  April, 1969.  Subsequent to this agreement the Board  entered  into another  agreement with the Federation on December  2,  1972 (hereinafter  referred to as the Second Settlement). In  the second  settlement. it was mentioned that this was  done  in view of some anomalies and difficulties which had cropped up in the course of implementation of previous agreements dated January 26, 1970; April 27, 1971; and July 28, 1972. It  was also mentioned in the said settlement that it was considered desirable to remove the anomalies and clarify certain points by  mutual negotiations. The settlement was  made  effective w.e.f.  1st  April, 1968. In the second  settlement  it  was agreed  to have two categories for Meter Readers i.e.  Meter Reader-I/Meter Checker I and Meter Reader-II/Meter  Checker- II. The relevant Clause in this regard reads as under: "II. Under pay-scale No. 3 technical read 21" Meter  Reader- I/Meter  Checker-I  and  under pay-scale  No.  2  technical, insert  "7 Meter Reader-/I/Meter Checker-II" and insert  the following Note below pay scale No. 2:       "Meter Reader-II/Meter Checker-II appointed/fixed, pro moted/adjusted on or before 31.3. 1968 will be fixed in  pay scale No. 3 instead of pay-scale No.2.     The  Board  in  accordance with  the  second  settlement issued  another  Notification dated 6.12. 1972  whereby  the previous Notification dated March 22, 1972 was amended. Some of the employees, namely, Jagdish Prasad, Brij Mohan,  Madho Singh, Prakash Chander, S. Samuel, Brij Lal and Chander Bhan filed  writ  petitions in the High Court of  Judicature  for Rajasthan  at Jodhpur and challenged the Notification  dated 6th December, 1972. It may be noted that all these employees were  appointees before 6.12. 1972. Learned Single Judge  of the  High Court by Judgment dated 21st March,  1979  allowed the write 282 petitions  and quashed the Notification dated 6th  December, 1972  mainly on the ground that the second settlement  could not  have  been  made as no  conciliation  proceedings  were pending  before such settlement and that the  date  1.4.1968 mentioned  in  the notification for  making  the  settlement effective  was arbitrary and without basis. The Board  filed on appeal before the Division Bench which by their  judgment dated 19th December, 1979 dismissed the same and upheld  the judgment of the Learned Single Judge. The Board  implemented the judgment of the High Court in respect of Jagdish  Prasad & Ors. and issued orders to provide scale No. 3 to all Meter Readers appointed upto 6.12. 1972.     After 6th December, 1972 some more persons were appoint- ed  on the post of Meter Reader/Meter Checker Grade II  i.e. in  the  pay scale of  Rs.80-5-110-6-152-7-194  between  the period  1972-1979.  Some of the employees again  filed  writ petitions  in the High Court. The High Court vide its  judg- ment  dated 29th March, 1982 allowed the writ  petitions  on the  ground  that  the second settlement  had  already  been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12  

quashed by the earlier judgment given in Brij Lal v.  Rajas- than  State Electricity Board, [1979] WEN UC 221.  The  High Court inter alia held and observed as under: "Once  the  second  settlement dated December  6,  1972,  no longer  exists in view of non-compliance with Section  19(2) of  the  aforesaid Act and in view of the decision  of  this Court  in Brijlal’s case (supra), the only settlement  which can be said to be in existence is the first settlement dated February  22, 1972. The aforesaid settlement  only  provides one grade (scale No. 3 item No. 21) for Meter Reader/ Check- er,  and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be  fixed in  that  grade. Merely because the post  of  Meter  Reader- II/Checker-II  was advertised with pay-scale No. 2  and  the petitioner applied and was selected, it cannot be said  that the petitioner is estopped now from challenging his fixation in the aforesaid pay scale. There can be no estoppel against statute.  The petitioner was not knowing and could not  know that  it  is the first settlement dated  February  22,  1972 which was in force and the settlement dated December 6, 1972 was invalid, and, therefore, no case of estoppel is made out against the petitioner.          Once  this Court had quashed the second  settlement dated December 6, 1972 and held that the first settlement 283 dated  22,2,  1972 Was in force, it Was  necessary  for  the Board to have fixed the Meter Reader/Meter Checker in  scale No.  3 item No. 21 of Schedule ’A’ to the first  settlement. The Board in spite of demand made to it by the petitioner in this behalf refused to do it".     A  bunch  of 35 identical writ petitions  directing  the Board  to  fix the petitioners in the pay-scale No.  3  (Rs. 126-250)  as  revised  from time to  time  were  allowed  by learned  Single  Judge of the High Court by a  common  order dated  November  15, 1983. The Board filed  special  appeals before the Division Bench. The Division Bench dismissed  the special  appeals  by orders dated 11.5.1984,  21.5.1984  and observed  that  the reasons will be recorded later  on.  The Division  Bench thereafter pronounced the reasons  by  order dated  2.7.  1984.  The Board has now  filed  these  appeals restricted  to  such employees who were appointed  as  Meter Readers/Checkers grade II after 1.4.1974.     It may also be mentioned at this stage that under Clause IX of the first settlement dated 22nd February, 1972 it  was mentioned as under: "(IX) This agreement shall remain in force upto 31st  March, 1974  and the Federation agrees not to raise any  demand  in respect  of  any of the matters covered  by  this  agreement during the period of the operation of the agreement". It  may  also be mentioned that in exercise  of  the  powers conferred  by Section 79, sub-sec. (c) and (k) of the  Elec- tricity  (Supply) Act, 1948, the Board after obtaining  con- currence  of  the  Government of  Rajasthan  and  directives issued  under  Sec. 70(A) of the said Act  and  taking  into consideration the suggestions made by the representatives of the  employees, made regulations which are called  Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees (emoluments)  Regulations, 1978. These regulations were made applicable retrospectively from 1st April, 1974. Under these regulations post of  Meter Reader-II/Meter  Checker-I1 was mentioned in scale No. 2  as revised in the pay-sclae of Rs.260-8-324-10-464.     Dr.  L.M. Singhvi, St. Advocate appearing on  behalf  of the  Board contended that irrespective of the earlier  judg- ment given by the High Court in Brij Lal v. R.S.E.B. (supra) quashing the second notification dated 6.12.1972 the present appeals having been filed against the Meter Readers appoint-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12  

ed on or after 1.4.1974, they are not entitled to scale 284 No. 3 as the first settlement dated 22.2. 1972 was to remain in  force upto 31st March, 1974. It was also argued that  in the appointment orders of the respondent employees appointed after  1.4.1974,  it was clearly mentioned  that  they  were appointed as Meter Reader/Meter Checker-II in pay-scale  No. 2 i.e. Rs.80-194.     Dr. Singhvi further argued that the Board had also  made regulations which had statutory force and were made applica- ble retrospectively from 1st April, 1974. Under these  regu- lations  also the post of Meter  Reader-II/Meter  Checker-II was  mentioned  in Scale No. 2. It was thus  contended  that considering the matter from any angle, the respondents  were not entitled to scale No. 3 but were only entitled to  scale No. 2 as revised from time to time. It was also pointed  out by  Dr. Singhvi that without prejudice to the above  submis- sions so far as respondents Laxman Lal, Sita Ram and  Madhay Lal are concerned, they were otherwise also not entitled  to get  any  relief  in as much as they  were  appointed  Meter Readers-II  after  the notification of  the  Regulations  of 1978.  The Regulations were notified vide  notification  No. RSEB.  F. RRBS/D.41 dated 4th May, 1978 whereas Laxman  Lal, Sita Ram and Madhay Lal were appointed respectively on  19th August, 1978.8th October, 1979 and 9th April, 1979.     Learned  counsel  for the respondent  employees  on  the other  hand submitted that in the settlement dated  February 22, 1972 no distinction was made of Meter Reader Gr. I or II and  the post of Meter Reader/ Meter Checker was  placed  in pay-scale  No. 3. It was submitted that validity  of  second settlement and the notification dated December, 6, 1972  was challenged  in Brij Lal’s case and a Division Bench  of  the High Court had quashed the aforesaid settlement and the said judgment was not challenged by the Board before this Hon’ble Court and the same had become final. Thereafter an  arbitra- tion  award  was  given in 1979 between the  Board  and  the Federation under which two categories of Meter Readers/Meter Checkers  were  again made. According to  this  award  Meter Reader/Meter Checker-II was placed in the pay scale No. 2 of Rs.80-194 and Meter Reader/Meter Checker-I was placed in the pay  scale  of No. 3 of Rs. 126-250. It was  thus  submitted that all the Meter Readers appointed upto 1979 were entitled to  scale  No. 3. It was further submitted  that  the  first settlement  dated  February 22, 1972  and  the  notification issued thereafter on March 22, 1972 continued to operate and there  was only one pay-scale of Rs. 126-250 for  all  Meter Readers  and there being no classification of Gr. I  or  II, the  pay  scale of Rs. 126-250 remained in force,  till  the arbitration award was given on June 15, 1979. It was submit- ted that all the respondents having been 285 appointed  prior  to June 15, 1979, they  were  entitled  to pay-scale  No.  3. As regards the stand taken by  the  Board that  it  had framed Regulations regarding the  fixation  of pay-scales  it was contended that no such plea was taken  in reply  to the writ petitions filed by the employees. It  was pointed  out  that the contention with regard to  the  first settlement  having come to an end on March 31, 1974 as  well as  the  contention raised on the basis of  regulations  was rightly negatived by the Division Bench of the High Court in the following manner: "It was contended by the learned counsel for the  appellants that  the learned Single Judge did not take into  considera- tion the fact that first settlement came to an end on  March 31, 1974 and was not in force after that date. He  submitted

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12  

that  the Board had powers under Sec. 79(c) and (k)  of  the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 to frame Regulations  regard- ing  the  fixation of pay scales. Learned  counsel  for  the appellants was asked to show from the writ petitions whether this  point was taken in the writ petitions or not.  Learned counsel for the appellants candidly admitted that it was not raised  in the writ petitions filed by the  petitioners.  It was, then. put to the learned counsel whether this point was argued  before the learned Single Judge. Mr. S.N.  Deedwania submitted that in the absence of the affidavit of the  coun- sel  who  argued  on behalf of  the  appellants  before  the learned  Single  Judge  positive assertion  to  that  effect cannot be made.           In the memo of appeal this ground, of course,  has been taken but not in the manner in which it has been stated hereinabove.  As this point was not taken in the writ  peti- tions and it was not argued before the learned Single Judge, we  do  not consider it necessary to examine  it.  We  shall examine the validity of the order under appeal on the  basis of the grounds that were argued on behalf of the petitioners before the learned Single Judge".     It  was  further contended that during the  pendency  of these  appeals additional affidavit was filed on  behalf  of Laxman Lal respondent. It was pointed out in the  additional affidavit that Sh. Udai Lal and Sh. Shyam Lal were appointed as  Meter Readers vide order dated 6.9.1974.  These  persons filed writ petitions Nos. 1191/81 and 1181/81  respectively. The aforesaid writ petitions were allowed by the High  Court vide judgment dated 28.3.1982. One Sh. Prem Shankar who  was appointed  as Meter Reader vide order dated 16.5. 1974  also filed a writ petition 286 No.  120/81  in the High Court and it was  also  allowed  by order  dated 28th March, 1982. The Board did  not  challenge the  aforesaid orders and issued order on  23.8.1982  imple- menting  the judgment of the High Court. The above  examples were  given  in order to show that these persons  were  also appointed after 1.4.1974 and in their cases also relief  was granted by the High Court and the Board never challenged the aforesaid  judgments given in favour of Udai Lal, Shyam  Lal and  Prem    Shankar. It has also been  submitted  that  the Board  has also published a revised revenue manual  on  1.9. 1986  in  which vide para 124 duties of Meter  Readers  have been  laid down. It is contended that in the manual no  dif- ferent  duties have been prescribed for Meter Reader II  and Meter Reader I and thus in the discharge of duties there  is no difference.     A  supplementary affidavit has been filed by  Shri  R.C. Harit,  Deputy Director, Rajasthan State Electricity  Board. It  has  been submitted in the  supplementary  affidavit  as under:          "That  is  so  happened that  after  the  aforesaid judgment dated 19th December, 1979 in the matter of R.S.E.B. v. Jagdish Prasad Brij Lal D.B. Appeal No. 179 of 1979  some other  Meter  Readers on the basis of  this  judgment  filed various  other writ petitions. In these writ  petitions  the question  above  the  applicability of  Regulations  or  the question as to whether the Respondent can challenge his  own appointment by which they were appointed to Meter  Reader-II post  were not at all raised or decided by the  High  Court. The  High Court decided the said writ petitions only on  the basis  of the earlier judgment in the matter of R.S.E.B.  v. Jagdish  Prasad (Brij Lal). The Appellant-Board  implemented the  said order. The respondent is trying to raise the  said question  which was neither been decided by the  High  Court

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12  

and has been raised for the first time in this supplementary affidavit.  On  account of lapse of time, the  appellant  is finding  it difficult to give reply. The Deponent has  tried his best to locate the records but in such a short period he could  not get the file of the case which was decided  about eight years back as it appears to have been mixed up in  the old record.          That  the order passed in the matter of Shanti  Lal was a Judgment inter parties and, therefore, simply  because the Board did not challenge the said order, it does not mean that the respondent can also take advantage of the same  and can raise the question of equal pay for equal work. In  this the 287 Appellants  further  state that all the persons  except  re- spondent Shri Lehar Singh and Gharsi Lal (Geharial) in civil appeal in the present case were appointed after 7th  Septem- ber,  1974  and 16th May,1974 i.e. the date on  which  three persons  whose matters were decided alongwith  Shanti  Lal’s case were appointed"     We have thoroughly examined the record and have  consid- ered  the  arguments advanced b.y Learned  counsel  for  the parties.  It may be noted that all the above appeals are  in respect of such employees who were appointed after 1.4.1974. In  the  appointment orders of all the  respondents  it  was specifically  mentioned  that they were appointed  as  Meter Reader  Gr. II in the pay scale of Rs. 80-194  (subsequently revised to Rs. 260-464). In Clause (ix) of the First Settle- ment dated 22nd February, 1972 it was clearly mentioned that this agreement shall remain in force upto 31st March,  1974. The stand taken by the Board all along was that this settle- ment  was subsequently amended by another agreement  (Second Settlement)  on December 2, 1972. In this second  Settlement certain  anomalies  and difficulties had cropped up  in  the course  of implementation of earlier settlements  and  hence some  clarifications were made by mutual  negotiations.  The clarifications relevant for our purpose were that the  First Settlement was made effective w.e.f. 1st April, 1968 instead of  1st April, 1969 and two categories were fixed for  Meter Readers i.e. Meter Reader-I/Meter Checker-I and Meter  Read- er-II/Meter  Checker-II. Necessary amendments were  made  in the  Schedules annexed to the Settlement according to  which under  pay-scale No. 3 at Item No. 21 Meter Reader-I/  Meter Checker-I  and  under pay-scale No. 2 at Item  No.  7  Meter Reader-II/Meter  Checker-II were inserted. This Second  Set- tlement  was subsequently notified by a  Notification  dated 6.12.  1972. According to the Board this  Second  Settlement was merely a clarification settlement and not a new  settle- ment  in  as much as it sought to make clear  the  ambiguity which  had cropped up in the First Settlement in the  matter of   fixing   the  grades  and  pay-scales  of   the   Meter Readers/Meter  Checkers.  The Notification  dated  6.12.1972 which  related to the Second Settlement dated 2.12.1972  was challenged by some of the employees by filing writ petitions in the High Court and Learned Single Judge by Judgment dated 21st March, 1979 allowed the writ petitions and quashed  the notification dated 6th December, 1972. It may be noted  that the  Second  Settlement was quashed on the ground  that  the Second  Settlement could not have been made as no  concilia- tion proceedings were pending before such settlement and the date  1.4.1968 mentioned in the Notification  was  arbitrary and without any 288 basis.  An appeal filed by the Board against  the  aforesaid decision  was  dismissed by the Division Bench of  the  High

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12  

Court on 19th December, 1979. This litigation was  commenced by  such  employees who were appointed prior  to  6.12.1972. Subsequently  employees appointed between the  period  1972- 1979 filed writ petitions in the High Court. The stand taken by  these  employees was that the Notification  dated  6.12. 1972 had already been quashed by the High Court and as  such they  were  to  be governed by the  First  Settlement  dated February  22, 1972 in which there was only one  category  Of Meter Reader/Meter Checker to whom pay-scale No. 3 had  been given  and as such they were also entitled to pay-scale  No. 3.  The  High Court allowed the writ petitions  and  granted pay-scale No. 3 to all the 35 petitioners. the Board has now come  before  this  Court against such  employees  who  were appointed  after  1.4.1974. The contention of the  Board  is that even if for arguments’ sake the earlier decision  given by  the High Court may be considered as final, that  was  in respect of employees who were appointed before 6th December, 1972. As regards the present employees it has been submitted that  no benefit can be granted in their case as  the  First Settlement  itself was to remain in force upto  31st  March, 1974  and in any case in the appointment orders of  the  re- spondents it was clearly mentioned that they were  appointed as Meter Reader/Meter Checker Gr. II in the pay-scale No. 2. It  has  also been urged before us that the Board  had  made Rajasthan  State Electricity Employees (emoluments)  Regula- tions  1978 published on 4.5. 1978 but the same were  deemed to  have been made applicable from 1st April,  1974.   Under these  regulations post of Meter Reader-II/Meter  Checker-II in  pay scale No. 2 and Meter Reader-I/Meter Checker-I  have been placed in pay scale No. 3.     Learned counsel for the employees-respondents  contended that  though according to Clause IX of the First  Settlement dated 22.2. 1972, it was mentioned that the same will remain in force till 31st March, 1974 yet the same would remain  in operation  until the expiry of two months from the  date  on which  a notice in writing of an intention to terminate  the settlement is given by one of the parties to the other party or parties to the settlement as provided under Sub-s. (2) of Section 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It has been submitted that no  such notice  was  given by the Board and  the  Second  Settlement dated  2.12.  1972  and Notification dated  6.12.  1972  had already  been quashed by the High Court in Brij  Lal’s  case (supra) and the same having become final, the first  settle- ment  Would govern the parties. Reliance in support  of  the above contention is placed on The Life Insurance Corporation of India v. D.J. 289 Bahadur and Ors., [1980] Lab.I.C. Vol. 2 1218. Our attention was drawn to para 33 of the above case which reads as under: "The core question that first fails for consideration is  as to whether the settlements of 1974 are still in force. There are  three stages or phases with different legal effects  in the  life  of an award or settlement. There  is  a  specific period  contractually or statutorily fixed as the period  of operation.  Thereafter,  the award or  settlement  does  not become  honest  but  continues to be binding.  This  is  the second chapter of legal efficacy but qualitatively different as  we  will presently show. Then comes the last  phase.  If notice  of  intention to terminate is  given  under  Section 19(2) or 19(6) then the third stage opens where the award or the  settlement  does survive and is in  force  between  the parties  as  a  contract which has  superseded  the  earlier contract  and subsists until a new award or negotiated  set- tlement  takes its place. Like Nature, Law abhors  a  vacuum

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12  

and  even on the notice of termination under Sections  19(2) or (6) the sequence and consequence cannot be just void  but a continuance of the earlier terms, but with liberty to both sides  to raise disputes, negotiates settlements or  seek  a reference  and  award. Until such a new  contract  or  award replaces  the previous one, the former settlement  or  award will regulate the relations between the parties. Such is the understanding  of  industrial law at least for 30  years  as precedents of the High Courts and of this court bear  testi- mony. To hold to the contrary is to invite industrial  chaos by an interpretation of the ID Act whose primary purpose  is to  obviate such a situation and to provide  for  industrial peace. To distil from the provisions of Sec. 19 a conclusion diametrically  opposite  of the  objective,  intendment  and effect  of the Section is an interpretative,  stultification of  the statutory ethos and purpose. Industrial  law  frowns upon  a lawless void and under general law the  contract  of service created by an award or settlement lives so long as a new  lawful contract is brought into being. To argue  other- wise  i, to frustrate the rule of law. If law is a means  to an  end-order is society--can it commit functional  harakiri by leaving a conflict situation to lawless void"? In  our view the above Sections 19(2) and 19(6) of  the  Act cannot  give any benefit to the respondents in the  fact  of the present case. It is not 290 in  dispute  that  the period of the  First  Settlement  was agreed  upto 31st March, 1974. The question which calls  for our  consideration  is not the applicability  of  the  First Settlement, but the real question to be considered is wheth- er the Board could have appointed or not the respondents  on the  post of Meter Reader/Meter Checker Gr. II in  pay-scale No.  2  after 1.4. 1974. The  respondents/employees  in  the present case want to take advantage of the First  Settlement simply  on  the ground that it did not make any  mention  of Meter  Reader/Meter Checker Gr. I or II and it  simply  made mention of Meter Reader/Meter Checker to whom pay scale  No. 3 was given. The above ambiguity was clarified by an  agree- ment  between the Board and the Union representing  the  em- ployees as early as on 2.12. 1972-itself to the effect  that Meter  Reader/Meter Checker can be placed in  two  different grades. After this there was no restriction on the Board  to make appointment of the Meter Reader/Meter Checker in  Grade II  after 1.4. 1974. That apart there was clear  mention  in the  appointment  orders of the respondents that  they  were appointed as Meter Reader/Meter Checker Gr. II in  pay-scale No.  2. Learned counsel for the  respondents/employees  were unable to place any law, Rule or Regulation of the Board  to show  that the Board had no power to make such  appointments of  the Meter Reader/Meter Checker in Gr. II. The Board  had already  taken the stand the first settlement was  clarified by the second settlement and as such even if the High  Court had quashed the second settlement, it was at least a  suffi- cient notice within the meaning of Section 19(2) of the  Act that  the  Board had terminated the first  settlement  after 31.3.  1974. The Regulations deemed to have come into  force from 1.4.1974 also clearly provided for pay-scale No. 2  for Meter Reader/Meter Checker Gr. II.     The Division Bench of the High Court refused to consider the  above  argument placed on behalf of the  Board  on  the ground that learned counsel for the appellants was asked  to show from the writ petitions whether this point was taken in the  writ petitions or not and the learned counsel  candidly admitted that it was not raised in the writ petitions  filed by the petitioners. The High Court further observed in  this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12  

regard  that as this point was not taken in the  writ  peti- tions and it was not argued before the Learned Single Judge, they  did not consider it necessary to examine it.  We  have already  extracted in extenso the observations of  the  High Court  in this regard in the earlier part of  the  Judgment. There  is a complete fallacy, in the above order in as  much as  the Board was not the petitioner before the  High  Court and  there was no question of taking any such ground in  the writ petitions. In one of the above appeals No. 2901 of 1985 Rajasthan State Electricity 291 Board  &  Ors.  v. Sharad Chander Nagar reply  to  the  writ petition  filed  by the Board has been placed on  record  as Annexure  ’C’.  In the said reply in Para (8)  it  has  been stated as under: "That  the  contents  of Para  No.  8  of the  writ petition are  wrong and denied. The petitioner was not  appointed  at the  time of settlement date 22.2.1972. The Wage Board  set- tlement dated 22.2.1972, which was in force upto 31.3. 1974, and thereafter the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employ- ees  (Emoluments) Regulation 1978 was (sic) come into  force with  effect  from 1.4.1974 and wages of all  the  employees were revised in pursuance of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board  (Emoluments) Regulation 1978. The copy of  the  Board (Emoluments) Regulation 1978 is submitted herewith as Annex- ure-"B".     Apart from the above circumstances of the case the Board in  its reply to the writ petition also took the stand  that the post of the Meter Reader Gr. I is a promotion post while the post of Meter Reader Gr. II is filled by direct recruit- ment.  The  Rajasthan State Electricity  Board  (Emoluments) Regulation 1978 made in exercise of the powers conferred  by Sec.  79 Sub-sections (c) & (k) of the Electricity  (supply) Act,  1948  have  Statutory force and it  has  been  clearly mentioned  that  they  ’shall be deemed to  have  been  made applicable from 1st April, 1974. The Board had set up  their case in the reply to the writ petition on the basis of these Regulations and it was the duty of the Division Bench of the High Court to have looked into the reply filed by the  Board and  to decide the effect of such statutory  regulations  in the present case.     The  Board under Clause (C) of Regulation 79  was  fully empowered  to provide for the duties of officers  and  other employees  of the Board, and their salaries, allowances  and other  conditions of service or under the  residuary  clause (k) for any other matter arising out of the Board’s function under  this  Act for which it is necessary or  expedient  to make regulations. We have gone through the regulations which have  been  brought into force from 1st April, 1974  and  in Schedule  II group ’B’ at Item No. 7  Meter  Reader-II/Meter Checker  II  has  been fixed in the  revised  pay  scale  of Rs.260-464  (original scale Rs.80-194) and in group  ’C’  at Item  No. 21 Meter Reader-I/Meter Checker-I in scale  No.  3 revised  pay-scale Rs.370-570 (original scale Rs.  126-250). The High Court committed a serious error in ignoring  Clause IX  of the First Settlement dated 22.2.1972 as well  as  the Regulations made by the Board in 1978. 292     So  far  as the cases of Udai Lal, Shyam  Lal  and  Prem Shankar  are concerned even if the Board did  not  challenge the order of the High Court dated 28.3.1982 in their  cases, it  cannot  act as res-judicata or as estoppel  against  the Board  in  challenging the present order of the  High  Court before  this  Court. There is no question  of  applying  the principle  of  equal  pay for equal work in  the  facts  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12  

circumstances  of  this  case and to  allow  Meter  Readers- II/Meter Checker Gr. II, the pay-scale of Meter Reader/Meter Checker  Gr.  I. Apart from that, these  controversies  have been raised by the respondents for the first time by  filing affidavits  before this Court at the fag end  of  arguments, and  these questions being mixed questions of fact and  law, cannot be permitted to be raised now.     In the result, we allow all these appeals, set aside the Judgment  of the High Court, and dismiss all the writ  peti- tions. In the facts and circumstances of the case we  direct the parties to bear their own costs. R.S.S.                                         Appeals   al- lowed. 293