1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.3262 OF 1994 David Sona Khanvilkar. ...Petitioner. Vs. The Executive Engineer Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Ichalkaranji & Anr....Respondents. .... Mr. T.R. Yadav i/b. Mr. K.S. Bapat for the Petitioner. Ms. A.R.S. Baxi for Respondent No.1. ..... CORAM :DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. June 25, 2008. P.C.: Leave to amend the petition so as to implead the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. as the Respondent is granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Ms.Baxi states that she has instructions to appear on behalf of the added Respondent and that she has already filed her Vakalatnama. 2. The Petitioner came to be suspended on 7th August 1989. 2 The suspension continued until 20th March 1991. The Petitioner asserted a claim to the payment of subsistence allowance under the Model Standing Orders framed in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The defence of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board was that the suspension allowance was paid to the Petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Regulations framed under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint by its judgment dated 28th October 1993 holding that the rules which were framed under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 would override the Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. 3. The issue which arises before this Court in this case is no more res integra. In U.P. State Electricity Board vs. Hari Shanker Jain,1 a Bench of three Learned Judges of the Supreme Court held that the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 1 AIR 1979 SC 65 3 constitutes a special legislation dealing with the conditions of service, enumerated in the Schedule of workmen in industrial establishments. The Supreme Court held that the Parliament when it enacted the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, did not have before it, the Standing Orders Act, nor did it intend that the Standing Orders Act should stand repealed pro tanto. The Supreme Court held in paragraph 9 of its judgment that the provisions of the Standing Orders Act must prevail over Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act in regard to matters to which the Standing Orders Act applies. However, the position would be different if the regulations are either notified by the Government under Section 13B of the Standing Orders Act or certified by the Certifying Officer. Before this Court it is an admitted position that the regulations were not notified at the material time under Section 13B. 4. In that view of the matter, the conclusion which has been arrived at by the Industrial Court was manifestly in error and the dismissal of the complaint was not in order. Since the employer had 4 failed to comply with the provisions of the Model Standing Orders, more particularly Rule 25(5)(a), there was of breach of Item 9 of Schedule IV resulting in the commission of an unfair labour practice. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order dated 28th October 1993 is quashed and set aside. The Petition shall stand allowed with the directions that the the First Respondent shall pay to the Petitioner the difference in the subsistence allowance between what was paid to him and what was liable to be paid to the Petitioner under the Model Standing Orders within a period of eight weeks from today. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. .....