Holding

The Board was lawfully empowered under Section 79(c) and (k) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 to fix pay‑scale No. 2 for Meter Reader‑II/Checker‑II, and the second settlement, though quashed, terminated the first settlement under Section 19(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, so the employees appointed after 1‑Apr‑1974 are correctly placed in pay‑scale No. 2.

Summary

The Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB) and its employees entered into a first settlement on 22‑Feb‑1972 fixing pay‑scale No. 3 for Meter Readers/Checkers, later clarified by a second settlement on 2‑Dec‑1972 that created two grades (I and II) with different scales. The High Court quashed the second settlement and, relying on the first settlement, granted pay‑scale No. 3 to several employees, including those appointed after 1‑Apr‑1974. RSEB appealed, contending that the first settlement expired on 31‑Mar‑1974, that the second settlement (even if quashed) gave sufficient notice under Section 19(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act to terminate the first settlement, and that the 1978 Emoluments Regulations made under Section 79(c) and (k) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, lawfully placed Meter Reader‑II/Checker‑II in pay‑scale No. 2. The Supreme Court held that the Board had statutory authority to prescribe the pay‑scale, that the second settlement terminated the first settlement, and that the appointment orders clearly showed the respondents were appointed in Grade II under scale 2. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the High Court judgment set aside, and the writ petitions dismissed.

Issues considered

The first settlement of 22‑Feb‑1972 remained in force for employees appointed after 1‑Apr‑1974 despite its stated expiry on 31‑Mar‑1974.
Whether the second settlement of 2‑Dec‑1972, though later quashed, terminated the first settlement under Section 19(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Whether the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees (Emoluments) Regulations, 1978, made under Section 79(c) and (k) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, have statutory force to fix pay‑scale No. 2 for Meter Reader‑II/Checker‑II.
Whether employees appointed as Meter Reader‑II/Checker‑II after 1‑Apr‑1974 are entitled to pay‑scale No. 3 (first settlement) or pay‑scale No. 2 (regulations and second settlement).
Whether the High Court erred in ignoring Clause IX of the first settlement and the 1978 regulations.

Legislation cited

Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948s. 79(c), s. 79(k)
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 19(2)

Subjects

pay scalesettlementIndustrial Disputes ActElectricity (Supply) Actemployee remunerationstatutory regulationstermination of settlementequal payclassification of posts

Judgment

RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.
A
v.
LAXMAN LAL ETC. ETC.

OCTOBER 11, 1990

[P.B. SAWANT AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] B

Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948/Rajasthan State Electricity Board
(Emoluments) Regulation, 1978. Section 79(c) and· (k) Regulation
79(c)-Meter Reader I/Meter Checker I and Meter Reader 11/Meter
Checker II-Entitlement to pay scale as per settlement.

A settlement was arrived at on 22.2.1972 between the Rajastban c
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 various categories of posts, effective from 1st
April, 1969. As per the settlement, Meter Reader/Meter Checker was
mentioned under scale No. 3. D

On December 2, 1972 a Second Settlement was entered into bet-
ween the parties with a view to removing certain ambiguities in the
earlier settlement. In this second Settlement, notified on 6.12.1972, it
was agreed to have two categories of Meter Readers, that .,, Meter
Reader I/Meter Checker I and Meter Reader II/Meler Checker II. This E
settlement was made effective w.e.f. 1.4.1968.

Some employees appointed before 6.12.1972 challenged the notifi-
cation 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 F
conciliation proceedings were pending before the second settlement.
The Division Hench dismissed the appeal f'ded by the Board. Accord-
ingly, 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.
G
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 called Rajasthan State H

277
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

Electricity Board Employees (Emoluments) Regulations, 1978. These
A
Regulations were made applicable retrospectively from 1st April, 1974.
Under these regulations, post of Meter Reader II/Meter Checker II was
mentioned in scale No. 2.

In 1979, an arbitration award was given between the Board and
B the onion under which two categories of Meter ReadersjMeter Checkers
were again made.

Subsequently, 35 employees appointed between the period 1972-
79 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
c 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
D 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
E appointed before 6th December, 1972; (ii) as regards the present emp-
loyees no benefit could be granted in their case as the First Settlement
itself was to remain in force upto 31st March, 1974; (iii) in any case in
the appointment orders of the respondents 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 Emp-
F loyees (Emoluments) Regulations 1978, which were made applicable
from Isl April, 1974 Meter Reader-II/Meter Checker TI 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 conended that (i)
G though according to Clause IX of the First Settlement 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 settlement
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 lndust-
H rial Disputes Act, 1947; (ii) that an arbitration award was given in 1979
....
R.S.E.B. v. LAXMAN LAL 279

between the Board and the employees federation under which two
categories of Meter Readers/Meter Checkers were again made and A
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 B
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 C
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 employees as
early as on 2.12.1972 itself to the effect that Meter Reader/Meter D
Checker contd 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. [290B-C]

(2) There was clear mention in the appointment orders of the
respondents that they were appointed as Meter Readers/Meter E
Checkers Gr. II in pay-scales No. 2. Learned Counsel for the respon-
dents/employees were unable to show that the Board had no power to make
snch appointments of the Meter Reader/Meler Checker in Gr. II. [290Dl

(3) The Board had already taken the stand that the fil'st settle-
ment was clarified by the second settlement and as such even if the High F
Court had quashed the second settlement, 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. [290EJ

The Life Insurance Corporation of India v. D.J. Bahadur & Ors.,
[1980] Lab. IC Vol. 2, 1218, distinguished. G

(4) The Rajasthan State Electricity Board (Emoluments) Regula-
tion, 1978 made in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec. 79 Sub-
sections (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 applicable from 1st April, 1974. The Board had set up H
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] Supp. ·2 S.C.R.

their case in the reply to the writ petition on the basis of these Regula-
A tions 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. [2910-E]

· (5) The High Court committed a serious error in ignoring clause
B 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
c 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
D Special Appeal No. 172 of 1984.

Dr. L.M. Singhvi, Sushi! Kumar Jain, Shahid Rizvi, Dr. D.K.
Singh, Pradeep Agarwal, Pratibha Jain and Sudhanshu Atreya for the
Appellants.

E Rajinder Singhvi, M.R. Singhvi and Surya Kant for the Respon-
denK

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KASLIW AL, J. All these civil appeals by special leave are
F 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 respon-
dents are entitled to pay-scale No. 2 or pay-scale No. 3.

The Government of India vide its Resolution dated 20th May,
G 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 Manda! Mazdoor Federation (in short the Federation) recog-
nised trade union of the employees of the Rajasthan State Electricity
H Board presented their demands before the Labour Department of the
R.S.E.B. v. LAXMAN LAL [KASLIWAL,J .I 281

Government of Rajasthan for implementation of the recommenda-
tions of the Wage Board. While the said industrial dispute between the A
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 categories of posts B
under different pay-scales. At SI. 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 settlement the Board issued a notification
dated 22nd March, 1972 revisirig 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 (herein-
after referred to as the Second Settlement). In the second settlement. c
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 \'{as also mentioned in the said settlement that it was
considered desirable to remove the anomalies and clarify certain D
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-
! and Meter Reader-II/Meter Checker-II. The relevant Clause in this
regard reads as under:
E
"IL Under pay-scale No. 3 technical read 21" Meter
Reader-I/Meter Checker-I and under pay-scale.No. 2 tech-
nical, insert "7 Meter Reader-II/Meter Checker-II" and
insert the following Note below pay scale No. 2:

"Meter Reader-II/Meter Checker-II appointed/fixed, pro- F
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. 19J2 whereby the previous Notifica-
tion dated March 22, 1972 was amended. Some of the employees, G
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 writ H
282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

petitions and quashed the Notification dated 6th December, 1972
A
mainly on the ground that the second settlement could not have been
made as no conciliation proceedings were pending before such settle-
ment 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 judg-
B ment 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 Ja~dish 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 appointed
c 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 judgment dated 29th March, 1982 allowed the writ peti-
tions on the ground that the ;econd settlement had .already been"
D quashed by the earlier judgment given in Brij Lal v. Rajasthan State
Electricity Board, [ 1979] WLN UC 221. The High Court inter a/ia 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)
E 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/
Checker, and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be
F 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
G 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
H dated December 6, 1972 and held that the first settlement
R.S.E.B. v. LAXMAN LAL IKASLIWAL,J .I 283

dated 22.2.1972 was in force, it was necessary for the Board A
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 B
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 c
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 D
under:

"(IX) This agreement shaU remain in force upto 3 lst
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 E
agreement".

It may also be mentioned that in exercise of the powers conferred by
Section 79, sub-sec. (c) and (k) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948,
the Board after obtaining concurrence of the Government of Rajas-
than and direetives issued under Sec. 70(A) of the said Act and taking F
into consideration the suggestions made by the representatives of the
employees, made regulations which are called Rajasthan State Electri-
city Board Employees (emoluments) Regulations, 1978. These regula-
tions were made applicable retrospectively from lst April, 1974. Under
these regulations post of Meter Reader-II/Meter Checker-II was men-
tioned in scale No. 2 as revised in the pay-sclae of Rs.260-8-324-10-464. G

Dr. L.M. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Board
contended that irrespective of the earlier judgment 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 appointed on or after 1.4.1974, they are not entitled to scale H
284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990) Supp. 2 S.C. R.

No. 3 as the first settlement dated 22.2.1972 was to remain in force upto
A
3 lst 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.

B Dr. Singhvi further argued that the Board had also made regula-
tions which had statutory force and were made applicable retrospec-
tively from !st April, 1974. Under these regulations 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 ou'. by Dr.
c Singhvi that without prejudice to the above submissions so far as
respondents Laxman Lal, Sita Ram and Madhav 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 Regula-
tions of 1978. The Regulations were notified vide notification No.
D RSEB. F. RRBS/D.41dated4th May, 1978 whereas Laxman Lal, Sita
Ram and Madhav Lal were appointed respectively on 19th August,
1978, 8th October, 1979 and 9th April, 1979.

Learne.d counsel for the respondent employees on the other hand
submitted that in the settlement dated February 22, 1972 no distinction
E 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
F had become final. Thereafter an arbitration 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-11 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
G 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
H June 15, 1979. It was submitted that all the respondents having been
R.S.E.B. v. LAXMAN LAL IKASLIWAL,J .] 285

appointed prior to June 15, 1979, they were entitled to pay-scale No. 3.
A
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 3 I, 1974 as well as the contention raised on
the basis of regulations was rightly negatived by the Division Bench of B
the High Court in the following manner:

"It was contended hy the learned counsel for the appellants
that the learned Single J udgc did not take into consideration
the fact that first settlement came to an end on March 31,
1974 and was not in force after that date. He submitted that
the Board had powers under Sec. 79(c) and (k) of the Elect- c
ricity (Supply) Act, 1948 to frame Regulations regarding 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 D
writ petitions filed by the petitioners. It was, then. put to the
learned counsel whether this point was argued betorc the
learned Single Judge. Mr. S.N. Decdwania submitted that in
the absence of the affidavit of the counsel who argued on
behalf of the appellants before the learned Single Judge
positive assertion to that effect cannot be made. E

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 F
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 ap-
peals additional affidavit was filed on behalf of Laxman Lal respondent. G
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 respec-
tively. The aforesaid writ petitions were allowed by th\' 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 H
286 SUPREME COIJRT REPORTS [1990) Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A 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 implementing 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
B 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 I. 9. 1986 in which vide para 124 duties of
Meter Readers have been laid down. It is contended that in the manual
no different duties have been prescribed for Meter Reader II and Meter
Reader I and thus in the discharge of duties there is no difference.
c A supplementary affidavit has been filed by Shri R.C. Harit,
Deputy Director, Rajasthan State Electricity Board. It ha' been submit-
ted in the supplementary affidavit as under:

"That is so happened that after the aforesaid judgment
D 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 ques-
tion above the applicability of Regulations or the question as
to whether the Respondent can challenge his own appoint-
E ment 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
F which was neither been decided by the High Court and has
been raised for the first time in this supplementary affidavit.
On account of lapse of time, the appellant is finding it dif-
ficult 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
G 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
H raise the question of equal pay for equal work. In this the
R.S.E.B. v. LAXMAN LAL [KASLIWALf .[ 287

Appellants further state that all the persons except respon-
dent Shri Lehar Singh and Gharsi Lal (Geharilal) in civil A
appeal in the present case Were appointed after 7th
September, 1974 and 16th May, 1974 i.e. the date on which
three persons whose matters were decided alongwith Shanti
Lal's case were appointed"
B
We have thoroughly examined the record and have considered
the arguments advanced by 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 Settlement dated c
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 settlement was subsequently amended by
another agreement (Second Settlement) on December 2, 1972. In this
second Settlement certain anomalies and difficulties had cropped up in D
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 Reader-II/Meter Checker-II. Necessary amend- E
ments were made in the Schedules annexed to the Settlement accord-
ing to which under pay-scale No. 3 at Item No. 2 I Meter Reader-I/
Meter Checker-I and under parscale No. 2 at Item No. 7 Meter
I Reader-II/Meter Checker-II were inserted. This Second Settlement
was subsequently notified by a Notification dated 6. 12. 1972. Accord-
ing to the Board this Second Settlement was merely a clarification F
settlement and not a new settlement 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 G
Single Judge by Judgment dated 21st March, 1979 allowed the writ
petitio.ns and quashed the notification dated 6th December, 1972. It ·
may be noted tliat 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 H
288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

basis. An appeal filed by the Board against the aforesaid decision was
A
dismissed by the Division Bench of the High 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
B 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 elf 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
C 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 pre-
•
sent employees it has been submitted that no benefit can be granted in
D 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 respon-
dents 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) Regulations 1978 published on 4.5.1978 but
E the same were deemed to have been made applicable from !st April,
1974. Under these regulations post of Meter Reader-II/Meter
Checker-JI 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
F 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
G 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
La/'s case (supra) and the same having become final, the first settle-
ment would govern the parties. Reliance in support of the above con-
H tention is placed on The Life Insurance Corporation of India v. D.J.
R.S.E.B. v. LAXMAN LAL [KASLIWAL,J .1 289

Bahadur and Ors., [1980] Lab.LC. Vol. 2 1218. Our attention was
drawn to para 33 of the above case which reads as under: A

"The core question that first falls 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 con- B
tractually 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 chap-
ter 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) C
then the third stage opens where the award or the settle-
ment 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 settlement takes its
place. Like Nature, Law abhors a vacuum and even on the
notice of termination under Sections 19(2) or (6) the D
sequence and consequence cannot be just void but a con-
tinuance 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 understand- E
ing of industrial law at least for 30 years as precedents of
the High Courts and of this court bear testimony. To hold
to the contrary is to invite industrial chaos by an interpre-
tation 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 diametri- F
cally opposite of the objective, intendment and effect of
the Section is an interpretative, stultification of the statut-
ory ethos and purpose. Industrial law frowns upon a law-
less 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 otherwise is G
to frustrate the rule of law. If law is a means to an end-
order is society-can it cornmit functional harakiri by leav-
ing a conflict situation to lawless void"?
'
I 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 H
290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

in dispute that the period of the First Settlement was agreed upto 3 lst
A
March, 1974. The question which calls for our consideration is not the
applicability of the First Settlement, but the real question to be con-
sidered is whether the Board could have appointed or not the respon-
dents 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
B 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. r
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 represent-
ing the employees as early as on 2.12.1972 ·itself to the effect that
Meter Reader /Meter Checker can be placed in two -different grades.
c 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 respon-
,
dents that they were appointed as Meter Reader/Meter Checker Gr. II
in pay-scale No. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents/employees
D 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 t
such even if the High Court had quashed the second settlement, it was
at least a sufficient notice within the meaning of Section 19(2) of the
E 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. {I. ,

The Division Bench of the High Court refused to consider the
F 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 regard that as this point was not taken in the writ petitions and it
G 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 iri 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
H of the above appeals No. 2901 of 1985 Rajasthan State Electricity
R.S.E.B. v. LAXMAN LAL [KASLIWAL,J .] 291

Board & Ors. v. Sharad Chander Nagar reply to the wri.t petition filed A
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 ap-
pointed at the time of settlement date 22.2.1972. The Wage B
Board settlement dated 22.2.1972, which was in force upto
31.3.1974, and thereafter the Rajasthan State Electricity
Board Employees (Emoluments) Regulation 1978 was (sic)
come into force with effect from 1.4.1974 and wages of all
the employees were revised in persuance of the Rajasthan
State Electricity Board (Emoluments) Regulation· 1978. The C
copy of the Board (Emoluments) Regulation 1978 is sub-
mitted herewith as Annexure-"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
Reade~ Gr. I is a promotion post while the post of Meter Reader Gr. II D
is filled by direct recruitment. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board
(Emoluments) Regulation 1978 made in exercise of the powers confer-
red 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 E
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 IC) of Regulation 79 was fully
empowered to provide for the duties of officers and other employees F
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 !st April, 1974 and in
Schedule II group 'B' at Item No. 7 Meter Reader-II/Meter Checker- G
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 Regula-
tions made by the Board in 1978. H
292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990) Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A 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 circumstances of this case
B
and to allow Meter Readers-II/Meter Checker Gr. II, the pay-scale of
Meter Reader/Meter Checker Gr. I. Apart from that, these contra·
versies 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.
c
In the result, we allow all these appeals, set aside the Judgment
of the High Court, and dismiss all the writ petitions. In the facts and
circumstances of the case we direct the parties to bear their own costs.

R.S.S .. Appeals,allowed.

i

'

t