THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.3566 OF 2005 AND 12434 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is common, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner in W.P.No.3566 of 2005 was working as Lower Division Clerk in the respondent – company i.e., A.P. Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd, Warangal. On the ground of short remittance of consumption charges of the customers, certain charges were framed and after conducting enquiry, by impugned proceedings he was imposed punishment of bringing down his pay scale for a period of ten years. Challenging the same, he filed the present writ petition. 3. The petitioner in W.P.No.12434 of 2008 was working as Revenue Cashier in the respondent – Company i.e, A.P. State Power Distribution Company Limited, Nellore. On the allegations of defalcation of funds of the company, he was charge sheeted and eventually dismissed from service by proceedings dated 16.7.1996 and his subsequent appeal ended in rejection. Aggrieved by the same, he raised I.D.No.40/2003 on the file of Labour Court, Guntur, which by impugned award dated 31.12.2007 while holding that the charge of misappropriation is not proved, ordered for compulsory retirement from service. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Both the counsel appearing for the petitioners in the respective writ petitions submitted that the respondent – company is an Industrial Establishment as defined under Section 2(e)(ii) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and as per the provisions under the said Act, the Regulations framed by the respondent – company under Section 79 ( c ) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1946, governing various conditions of service of its employees, have got to be certified by the Certifying Officer and notified. In the present case, as the said regulations were neither certified,nor notified, as required under the Industrial Standing Orders Act, no reliance can be placed on the regulations and hence the whole process is vitiated and the punishment imposed under the said regulations, which has no legal sanctity, has got to be set aside. They submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a decision of the learned single Judge of this court reported in DIVISIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEER (OPERATIONS), A.P. TRANSCO LIMITED v. LABOUR COURT, GUNTUR[1], where under this court held that since the regulations framed by the A.P. State Electricity Board, were not certified by following the procedure prescribed under Section 5 of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 and that they are also not notified in terms of Section 13-B of the said Act and that the Standing Orders Act being a special piece of legislation would prevail over Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, and hence no reliance can therefore be placed on the Regulations. 5. Sri P.Laxma Reddy, Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of the learned single Judge of this court referred to supra. 6. The petitioners in both the writ petitions are the employees of the A.P. State Power Distribution Company Limited, which is the successor of the A.P. State Electricity Board. The Board has framed regulations under Section 79( c ) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, governing the services of the employees/workmen and there is also no dispute that the respondent – company is an Industrial Establishment as defined under Section 2(e)(ii) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The regulations made under Section 79 ( c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, have not been notified by the Government for exempting the Act as required under Section 13-B or certified by the Certifying Officer under Section 5 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act. Therefore, the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, being a special law, the matters enumerated in the schedule thereto, will prevail over the regulations made under the Electricity (Supply) Act, unless they are notified by the Government under Section 13-B or certified by the Certifying Officer under Section 5 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act. As already noticed above, the regulations made under Section 79 ( c ) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, have not been notified by the Government or certified by the Certifying Officer. The Apex Court in the decision reported in U.P.S.E.Board v. HARI SHANKER[2] held as under: “9. We have already shown that the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act is a Special Act dealing with a 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 Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act embodying as they do hard-won and precious rights of workmen and prescribing as they do an elaborate procedure, including a quasi-judicial determination, by a general, incidental provision like S.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 stand pro tanto repealed by S. 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. 17. We, therefore, hold that the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act is a 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 S. 13-B or certified by the Certifying Officer under S.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 Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act shall continue to apply.” 7. Following the above judgment of the Apex Court, a learned single Judge of this court, in the decision cited one supra, held that since the regulations framed by the A.P. State Electricity Board, were not certified by following the procedure prescribed under Section 5 of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 and that they are also not notified in terms of Section 13-B of the said Act and that the Standing Orders Act being a special piece of legislation would prevail over Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, and hence no reliance can therefore be placed on the Regulations. 8. In the present case, as the impugned orders imposing punishment have been passed under the regulations made under Section 79 ( c ) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, which has no legal sanctity, as they were neither notified by the Government as required under Section 13-B of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders ) Act, nor certified by the Certifying Officer under Section 5 of the said Act, in view of the above judgments of the Apex Court and this Court, the impugned orders, imposing punishments on the writ petitioners, cannot be sustained and accordingly they are set aside, leaving it open to the authorities to initiate action in accordance with law. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. AVS ---------------------------- 22—06—2011 [1] 2011(3) ALT 530 [2] 1978 LAB I.C. 1657