: 1 : wp.1283.2011.sxw vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1283 OF 2011 Shri Rajendra Bhausaheb Gulwe & Anr. ... Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.M.S. Karnik with Shri Harshad Inamdar for the Petitioners Mr.R.M. Patne, AGP, for the Respondent No.1 Mr.Shaunak Thacker a/w Gunjan Thacker i/b Mulla & Mulla & CBC for Resp. No.2 CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE: JULY 7, 2011. P.C.: 1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order passed by the MERC dated 27.1.2011 and also the order passed on the intervention application which was filed by the petitioners. 2. It is common ground that the petitioners have been working as employees of respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 is the State of Maharashtra whereas Respondent No.3 is the Distribution Company which has been granted a licence within the meaning of section 14(4)(d) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Society which the petitioner claims to be employed distributes electricity in 183 villages with the help of 16 labourers like the petitioner. Case No.10 of 2007 was filed by Respondent No.3 before the Maharashtra State Electricity : 2 : wp.1283.2011.sxw Regulatory Commission (`MERC' for short) for revocation of the licence of respondent No.2 society. The revocation was sought due to non payment of the electricity bills. The allegations in the application are that since October 1977, respondent No.2 society defaulted in making payments for electricity supplied by the erstwhile Maharashtra State Electricity Board. There have been arrears amounting to 951.49 crores in respect of non-payment of electricity dues. The arrears were increasing by 12 crores every month thereby amounting to Rs.144 crores every year. It is common ground that the petitioners are members of certain labour unions which participated in the hearing before the Commission. The case of the Petitioners and the Labour Unions was that in the event of revocation of the licence of Respondent No.2, their services should be continued by the new licencee and the MERC should direct accordingly. It is for that the parties have sought intervention in the proceedings. 3. The petitioners' case is that having worked to the utmost satisfaction of Respondent No.2 and being not responsible for the state of affairs they should not be affected by revocation of the licence or change in the licencee. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that the impugned order has been passed without in any manner considering the grievances of the petitioners and those labour unions representing the workers like the Petitioners. Consequently, jeopardising their livelihood. At the hearing of the petition, on a repeated query from the Court as to why the petitioners and the unions : 3 : wp.1283.2011.sxw representing them chose to approach the Commission and seek redressal of their grievances therein, the only answer given was that by virtue of section 16 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the appropriate forum can specify general or specific conditions which shall apply to the licencee or a class of licencees. Therefore, even when permitting revocation of licence of Respondent No.2 and taking over the affairs by Respondent No.3, the Commission could have imposed a condition with regard to the protection of petitioners' employment. 5. It is not possible to accept this contention. The petitioners may have been permitted to intervene but for redressal of the grievances in relation to their employment or its protection, they have patently chosen a wrong forum. They ought to have gone before the appropriate forum wherein they could have sought appropriate relief with regard to any apprehended termination of their services or employment or in any event for protection thereof. It was not for the Commission to have regulated the master-servant relationship in the course of exercising its powers under the Electricity Act. The Commission was dealing with the grievances of the company which has given distribution licence and finding that the terms and conditions thereof were not complied with they sought revocation of the same and consequential steps in furtherance thereof. In such proceedings the petitioners' grievance with regard to the protection of their employment with respondent No.2 and that being allegedly in jeopardy on account of acts of respondent No.2 or Respondent No.3, could not have gone into and adjudicated. The Commission, therefore, was not obliged to consider this grievance as the remedy of the petitioner lied elsewhere. There is no error : 4 : wp.1283.2011.sxw of law or perversity in concluding that the petitioners' grievances cannot be made subject matter of the proceedings before the Commission. Finding that the conclusion reached cannot be interfered with on account of the above factors there is no alternative but to dismiss this petition. 6. Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed but by clarifying that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the controversy and also as to whether the petitioners can seek continuation of employment or for such reliefs as permissible in law. If the appropriate forum is approached and it is competent to grant such reliefs, the same may consider and grant them without being influenced by any observations in the order of the Commission or the dismissal of this Petition. Writ Petition dismissed subject to above. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)