Case: Workmen of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking Vs. Management of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking

2. Two disputes between the Workmen of the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking and the Management of the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking were referred by the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, for adjudication to the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Delhi. Those two disputes were I. D. No. 34 of 1966 and I. D. No. 102 of 1966. A common Award in both the disputes was given by the Tribunal. This Court has granted by its order dated May 1, 1968 special leave limited to the following points :"(1) Whether the Inspectors and Superintendents required to work beyond their normal duty hours are entitled to payment ofovertimefor the extra time and what directions are necessary in this respect(2) Whether conveyance allowance to Inspectors and Superintendents needs to be increased and what directions are necessary in this respect."3. The Delhi area served by the Undertaking is divided into a number of zones. Technical staff is attached to each zone. At the head of the Staff is an Assistant Engineer. Next to him is a Technical Superintendent and there are Inspectors below him. The staff looks after the operation, maintenance and construction of the distribution system. The workmen covered by both the points, regarding which special leave has been granted, are persons working either in thes or the zonal stations. The demand of the Technical Superintendents and Inspectors in thes and zonal stations was that their hours of duty and other conditions of service should be fixed in the same manner as those of the employees working in the power stations which have been registered as factories under the Factories Act, 1948. On this basis, the Superintendents and the Inspectors claimed that they should be paidovertimewages for the extra time they work over and above their normal hours of duty. This claim was pressed on the basis that the workmen in the power stations get such payment for4. This claim was contested by the Undertaking on the ground that the power station has alone been registered as a factory under the Factories Act, and neither thes nor the zonal stations have been treated as a factory as in law those two areas are not a factory under Section 2 (m) of the Factories Act. The respondent further pleaded that the payment ofovertimewages was being paid to the workmen in the power station not under the Factories Act but under clause (D) of Regulation 17 of the Service Regulations framed under Section 79 (c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 19485. The claim of the appellants regarding the conveyance allowance was for revision of the allowance fixed by the respondent by its order dated April 10, 1964. Their grievance was that while ther allowance to the higher grade officers was being increased from time to time, no such increment has been made in respect of these two classes of employees. Their plea was that the conveyance allowance must be fixed at Rs. 120/per month for the Superintendents and Rs. 80/per month for the Inspectors6. This claim again was contested by the respondent on the ground that the order dated April 10, 1964 was issued with retrospective effect from July 1, 1963 after a very careful consideration of all relevant circumstances including the allowance that was being give to the Central Government employees on the recommendation of the Pay Commission. The basis of allowance fixed under the order dated April 10, 1964 was scientific one and as such no further increase is permissible for these workmen7. The Tribunal held that the service conditions of the appellants were governed by the Regulations framed under the Electricity (Supply) Act which still continues to be in force. Under the said Regulation noovertimewages have been allowed to Technical Superintendents and Inspectors and therefore, the claim forovertimeallowance cannot be granted. Regarding the claim for increase in the conveyance allowance, the Tribunal held that though it is true that a fairly high rise in ther allowance to the higher officers has been given in the order dated April 10, 1964, any disturbance of the allowance fixed for persons having scotters ands like the Superintendents and Inspectors will disturb the entire arrangement as laid down in the order dated April 10, 1964. On this ground this claim was also rejected8. The Delhi State Electricity Undertaking was taken over by the Delhi Municipal Corporation by virtue of Section 511 read with item No. 11 of the Second Schedule of the Central Act 66 of 1957. All the employees under the Electricity Board became the employees of the Corporation. When the undertaking was with the Delhi Electricity Board, it was governed by the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. By virtue of the powers conferred on the said Undertaking by S. 79 (c) of this Act, the Board had power to make Regulations among other matters, relating to conditions of service of officers and servants of the Board, their salaries, duty allowance etc

Court's reasoning:
12. Mr. G. B. Pai is well founded in his contention that the appellants have nowhere raised the point that the Regulations are not saved by Section 516 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act13. As the first contention that the Regulations are not saved by Section 516 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, was taken by Mr. Chagla for the first time and that without any previous notice to the respondent, we did not permit him to pursue that contention15. From the definition of "factory" it is clear that it must be a premises where a manufacturing process is carried on.According to Mr. Chagla, the manufacturing process that is carried on by the undertaking is that of generating, transforming and transmitting electricity power. Though electricity is generated in the power station still to reduce the voltage and do other incidental acts for the purpose of ensuring supply of power to consumers, thes and the zonal stations are an integral part of the power station. That is, according to Mr. Chagla, the entire process of generating, transforming and transmitting power, though these items of work may be done in different places, namely, power stations,s and the zonal stations, must be considered to form part of a single manufacturing process in which the workmen concerned are. The fact that some of the workmen are in the power station and the rest are either in thes or the zonal stations will not make any difference in this respect, as all of them take part in the manufacturing process. Admittedly, the power station is treated as factory and it follows that these two units, the16. No doubt,Mr. Chagla referred us the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. v. Employees State Insurance Corpn., AIR 1961 Cal, where it was held that the power stations or generating stations and connecteds and other ancillary establishments are to be considered as one unit. But this conclusion was arrived at by the learned Judges when construing the expression "employee" under Section 2 (9) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. A reading of that definition clearly shows that its ambit was very wide. Therefore this decision does not assist Mr. ChaglaWe are conscious that the question whether a particular unit is a factory has to be decided by applying the ingredients contained in the definition of "factory" under the Factories Act and therefore, the fact that a witness, however, high placed he may be, says that a particular unit is not a factory cannot be conclusive on the matter. We have, after applying the necessary test held that thes and the zonal stations are not factories and in that connection the evidence of M. W. 1 becomes relevant. From the above discussion it follows that the second contention also fails20. Regarding the third contention, though we have great sympathy, when the grievance of the concerned workmen is that they are not paid when they are asked to work, no relief can be granted to them. Their service conditions are governed by the Regulations framed under Section 79 (c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, Regulation No. 17 clearly specifies that persons to whomovertimewages can be paid. The concerned workmen do not come under any of the categories. Mr. Chagla has not been able to satisfy us that contrary to Regulation No. 17 any workman is being paidovertimewages. Therefore, this contention also has to be rejected23. Mr. G. B. Pai learned counsel for the respondent, no doubt, referred us to the written statement of the respondent filed before the Tribunal, wherein it is stated that when the order dated April 10, 1964 was passed, the cost of maintenance, repair charges, cost of fuel have all been taken into account. It is further stated that the Pay Commission had recommended certain scales of conveyance allowance to the officers of the Government as well as to the employees of the Central Public Works Department. As the order has fixed the conveyance allowance on a scientific basis, the counsel pointed out, that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of the workmen, for increasing the conveyance allowance24. We are not inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Pai. The Tribunal has, as we have already pointed out, given no other reason except the fact that if the rates in the order are disturbed in favour of one category of workmen, it will have repercussions on other categories of workmen. It may be that if the rates are altered in favour of one group of workmen, there may be claims from other workmen also. That by itself is not a valid reason, in our opinion, for rejecting the claim of the workmen. Mr. Pai also pointed out during the course of his arguments that as Delhi has expanded far and wide, the officers with cars have to travel longer distances and therefore an increase in the car allowance was justified. There was no material placed before the Tribunal by the respondent as to what additional trips the officers have to make over and above the trips that they used to make in 1955 and later on. Admittedly, the conveyance allowance fors have been steadily increased from 1955. The 1964 rates show that the increase is as much as 21/2 times in some cases in respect of. If there is a justification for such an increase in respect of cars, there is also justification for giving additional allowance regardings and scooters. In the written statement the respondent has admitted that the break down in electricity is very frequent and that the Superintendents and Inspectors have to make more frequent visits. Having due regard to the increase in the cost of maintenance, fuel etc. which the respondent has itself taken note of in 1964 and the extra mileage that has to be covered, in our opinion, the Superintendents and Inspectors must be given an increase of Rs. 25/and Rs. 12.50 per month respectively over the present rate of allowance given to them in the order of 1964. Accordingly, the Superintendents will get Rs. 85/per month and the Inspectors will get Rs. 42.50 per month. These workmen will be entitled to get the allowance at this rate retrospectively from the date of reference, namely, April 1, 1966. The excess amount due to them as per our Judgment from April 1, 1966 upto March 31, 1972 will be paid by the respondent within three months from today. From April 1, 1972 these workmen will get the conveyance allowance at the rate fixed by us.