Supreme Court of India
SAT PAL PURIversusPUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 237
- Decided
- 21 February 2008
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
Because the technical field staff are governed by regulations framed under Section 79(c) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, they have no legal right to invoke Section 33‑C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the Municipal Employees Union precedent does not apply; the appeals are dismissed.
Summary
The appellants, technical field staff of the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB), filed a writ petition seeking parity in remuneration for work performed on Saturdays and Sundays, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Municipal Employees Union v. State of Punjab. The Punjab & Haryana High Court had allowed the claim, but the Board appealed. The Supreme Court examined whether the Municipal Employees Union precedent applied, noting that PSEB’s technical staff are governed by regulations framed under Section 79(c) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 and by a 1972 circular granting limited Saturday holidays, while a 1986 circular closing offices on weekends applied only to office staff. Because the staff are covered by statutory rules, they cannot invoke Section 33‑C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to claim extra wages. Consequently, the Court held that the Municipal Employees Union decision does not extend to them and dismissed the appeals.
Issues considered
- Whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Municipal Employees Union v. State of Punjab is applicable to technical field staff of the Punjab State Electricity Board for claims of parity in remuneration for Saturday and Sunday work.
- Whether such staff can file an application under Section 33‑C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 when they are governed by regulations under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948.
Legislation cited
- Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948s. 12, s. 79(c)
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 33-C(2)
Subjects
parity in remunerationSaturday workSection 33‑CElectricity Supply Acttechnical field staffcircularsindustrial disputesholiday entitlement
Judgment
(2008] 3 S.C.R. 215
_; r
SAT PAL PURI A
v.
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2235 of 2008)
FEBRUARY 21, 2008
B
(S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.)
"
Labour Laws:
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; S. 33-C(2)/Electricity
. Supply Act, 1948; Ss. 12 & 79(c) and Circulars dated April 5, c
1972 and October 27, 1986 issued by the Punjab State
I
Electricity Board:
Parity in remuneration - Employees belonging to
•4
technical service Grade~/// and performing field duties - D
!'
Claiming parity in remuneration for working on Saturdays and
Sundays in terms. of decision of Supreme Court in Municipal
Employees Union vs. State of Punjab - Held: In terms of
Circular dated April 5, 1972 issued by the Board, the technical
field staff entitled to certain holiday as indicated therein -
Another Circular issued by the board declaring that the Offices E
of the Board shall remain closed on Saturdays and Sundays
- But the said Circular not applicable to the employees in
,.; question - In terms of judgment of Supreme Court in Municipal
- Employees Union's case, employees were ordered to claim
extra wages for working on Saturdays and Sundays and could
file application uls,33(c) of the 1947 Act provided they were
F
not governed by any statutory Rules - But employees in
question governed by Regulations framed uls. 79(c) of 1948
Act - Hence, they could not file application u/s. 33-C of the Act
to claim benefit in terms of the said decision of the Supreme G
Court - Rule of Precedent - Applicability of.
°"+ Appellant-employees filed a writ petition before the
Punjab and Haryana High Court claiming parity in the
215 H
216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 3 S.C.R.
"
A matter of remuneration for working on Saturdays and
Sundays in terms of the decision of this Court in Municipal
employees Union (Regd.) Sirhind & Ors. vs. State of Punjab
& Ors., wherein it was opined that in the absence of any
express provision to the contrary in Municipal bye-laws,
B the octroi staff could not be denied the benefit of non-
working Saturdays; that factual foundation for such claim
was required to be established; and that in the event if '
the employees had filed applications under Section 33-C
(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the same may be
c entertained.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 From the Circular letter dated 5.4.1972
issued by the Punjab State Electricity Board, it appears
that technical field staff would be entitled to the holidays
D
in a calendar year as stipulated therein. (Para - 8) [219-F] "" •
1.2 The Circular dated 27.10.1986 issued by the
Punjab S~ate Electricity Board declaring that the offices
of the Electricity Board shall remain closed on all the
E Saturdays and Sundays, would clearly show that the same
would be applicable only in respect of the officers and
employees working in the office of the Electricity Board
and not the Field Staff. The Circular dated 5.4.1972 has
not been repealed by Circular letter dated 27.10.1986. In
~
F view of the fact that the technical staff of the Board are
governed by Regulations framed under Section 79(c) of
the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, the appellants do not have
any existing legal right so as to enable them to file an
application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. (Paras - 10 & 11) [220-C, D, E]
G
1.3 E.ven in Municipal Employees Union's case, this
Court opined that the octroi staff could be entitled to the
said benefit of non- working Saturdays, were entitled to
extra wages in lieu thereof, if they are not governed by ~1
H any of the rule. In case, the appellants being governed by
I
SAT PAL PURI v. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY 217
-'
( BOARD & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
statutory rules, th.ey would not be entitled to file A
applications under Section 33-C(2) of the 1947 Act. Hence,
the impugned judgment and order of the High Court
does not suffer from any legal infirmity. (Paras - 12 & 13)
[220-F, G, H; 221-A]
Municipal Employees Union (Regd.) & Ors. vs. State of B
Punjab & Ors. (2000) 9 SCC 432 - referred to.
'
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2235
of 2008.
From the final Judgment I Order dated 11/3/2003 of the c
High Court of Punjab and Haryaria at Chandigarh in R.A. No.
64/2003 in C.W.P. No. 19838/2002.
WITH
~ r Civil Appeal Nos. 6097/03, 6602/03, 6599/03, 6938/03, D
7980/03, 7981/03, 6106/03, 6601/03, 6597/03, 6939/03, 6594/
03, 7982, 1929, 2355, 2352, 1840, 1928, 1926, 1918, 1924,
1925, 1836,4428,4435,4436,4437,6595,4439,4440,4443,
6102, 6594/2003, 2172/2008, 2171/2008, 2170/2008, 2169/
2008, 2168/2008, 2167/2008, 2166/2008, 2164/2008, 2165/ E
2008, 2236/2008, 2237/2008, 2233-34, 2238, 2242/2008.
A.K. Ganguli, K.G. Bhagat, Manohar Singh Bakshi, Lakhbir
_,.. Singh Bakshi, Debasis Misra, Ajay Majithia, Rajesh Kumar,
Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Dr. Kailash Chand, Sudhir
Nandrajog, Bimal Roy Jad, S.K. Sabharwal, Harinder Mohan F
Singh, Kaushal Yadav, Durgesh Yadav, Kuldip Singh, R.K.
Pandey Madhukar Choudhary, Naresh Bakshi, Shalu Sharma,
R.C. Kaushik, Arun K. Sinha, K.L. Mehta (for Mis. K.L. Mehta &
Co.) K.J. John, Yash Pal Dhingra, P.K. Goldaney,A.P. Mohanty,
Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Tarun Gupta, Nidhi Gupta, S. Janani, G
Dharmendra Kumar Sinha for the appearing parties .
.
......1"- The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave is granted in the SLPs.
H
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.
A 2. Appellants filed a writ petition before the Punjab and
Haryana High Court at Chandigarh claiming parity in the matter
ofrenumeration for working on Saturdays and Sundays in terms
of the decision of this Court in Municipal Employees Union
(Regd.) Sirhind & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., (2000) 9
B SCC 432, wherein it was opined that in the absence of any
express provision to the contrary in Municipal bye-laws, the
octroi staff could not be denied the benefit of non-working ,.,
Saturdays and; thus, when required to work on such Saturdays,
they could be granted extra wages in lieu thereof. However,
c this Court fu~her opined that factual foundation for such claim
was required to be established. It was also opined that in the
event if the employees had filed applications under Section
33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the same may be
entertained.
D 3. The Division Bench of the High Court in some cases
even without ncitice, allowed the writ applications filed by the
workmen opining that the State of Punjab cannot deny the said
benefit to the employees of other departments. Respondent-
Punjab State Electricity Board filed an application for review of
E the said judgmimt and by reason of the impugned judgment,
the Division Bench of the High Court held that the decision of
this Court in Municipal Employees Union (supra) is not
applicable. The appellants are, thus, before us.
4. The shori question which arises for our consideration is
F as to whether the decision of this Court in Municipal Employees
Union (supra) is applicable to the facts and circumstances of
this case. The Punjab State Electricity Board was constituted
and incorporated in terms of Sections 5 and 12 of the Electricity
Supply Act, 1948 (for short, 1948 Act). Under Section 79(c) of
G the 1948 Act, the Board subject to compliance of the statutory
requirements contained therein is entitled to frame its own
regulations. It is permissible for the Board to frame different
regulations for different categories of employees. It is a .,. ..
department of the State of Punjab.
H
SAT PAL PURI v. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY 219
BOARD & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
(
5. It is stated that Appellants herein belong to the technical A
category; service grade Ill, requiring to perform field duties.
Supply of electricity is a public utility function of the Board. The
Board therefore is required to have technical staff at their
disposal, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
6. It has been contended before us that in fact several B
regulations have been framed by the Board in this. behalf.
Several agreements have also been entered into by and between
the Union and the Board. Some of the employees are also
governed by the provisions of the 1948 Act.
c
7. Our attention has also been drawn to the fact that three
categories of workmen are governed by different terms and
conditions of service in regard to enjoyment of holidays; viz.
a) Technical Staff (Regular) Work charged covered on
the Factories Act 1948. D
r
b) Regular Technical Field Staff not covered under the
Factories Act.
c) Work charged employees not covered under the
Factories Act. E
8. It has also been stated that local outdoor duty allowance
(LODA)' to different categories of Technical/Field staff
employees working on different duties, e.g. those working in
the operations and R.E. Divisions, construction organizations
are paid. The quantum of allowance is revised from time to F
time. Our attention has further been drawn to a circular letter
dated 5.4.1972, from a perusal whereof it appears that technical
field staff would be entitled to the holidays in a calendar year as
stipulated therein, namely,
G
i) Saturdays on alternate months-not exceeding five.
ii) Half the number of Gazetted Holidays notified by the
Board for the other staff.
9. We must however notice that the Punjab State Electricity H
220 SUPHEME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.
'
A Board had issued a circular letter dated 27.10.1986 which is in
the following terms:
"In compliance with the instructions issued vide this office
order No.432/PSEB dated 24.05.1982, it is informed that
all the officers of the Punjab State Electricity Board shall
B function from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. from Monday to Friday
with lunch break from 1.30 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. i.e. the same
office timings of the Government of Punjab. The offices of
.the Electricity Board shall remain closed on all the
Saturdays and Sundays:
c
2. The same holidays shall be observed in the offices of
the Punjab State Electricity Board as are being observed
in the office of the Punjab Government."
10. A ban~ perusal of the said circular dated 27 .10.1986
D would clearly show that the same would be applicable only in
respect of the officers and employees working in the office of
the Electricity Board and not the Field Staff. The circular letter
dated 5.4.1972 has not been repealed by circular letter dated
27.10.86.
E 11. In view of the fact that the technical staff of the Board
are governed by regulations framed under Section 79(c;) of the
1948 Act the appellants herein do not have any existing legal
right so as to enable them to file an application under Section
33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
F
12. We have noticed hereinabove that even in Municipal
Employees Union's case (supra), this Court opined that the
octroi staff could be entitled to the said benefit of non-working
Saturdays and when required to work on such Saturdays, were
G entitled to extrci wages in lieu thereof, if they are not governed
by any of the rule. In the case the appellants being governed by
statutory rules, they would not be entitled to file applications
under Section 33-C(2) of the 1947 Act.
13. ForthE~ aforementioned reasons, we are of the opinion
H that the impugned judgment and order of the High Court does
SAT PAL PURI v. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY 221
BOARD & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
not suffer from any legal infirmity. These appeals are, therefore, A
dismissed. No costs.
Civil Appeal Nos. 7982, 1929, 2355, 2352, 1840, 1928,
1926, 1918, 1924, 1925, 1836,4428,4435,4436,4437,6595,
4439, 4440, 4443, 6102 & 6594 of 2003 and 2238/2008, 2242/
2008. B
Leave is granted in the SLPs.
It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that
the appeals above-mentioned have been covered by order
dated 14.2.2008 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 1476/ C ·
2003 and other connected appeals. These appeals are
disposed of accordingly.
S.K.S. Appeals disposed of.
D
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "parity in remuneration"Sign in to search