Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The said Writ Petition came up for disposal before Kailasam, J., (as he then was) and learned Judge posed for consideration the question whether Electricity Department of Coimbatore Municipality was an "industrial establishment", falling within the scope of the Standing Orders Act and answered the same in favour of the petitioner in the writ petition. Learned Judge also took the view that the Standing Orders Act, being a special enactment, would prevail over the earlier general Act and the provisions of the Municipalities Act and the rules framed thereunder, which are not in conformity with the Standing Orders Act and the Model Standing Orders will not apply. The said judgment of Kailasam, J., is reported as Thimvenkataswami v. Coimbatore Municipality by its Commissioner (1968)1 L.L.J. 361.

4. Coimbatore Municipality did not leave the matter there and it agitated the matter further by way of filing an appeal, being W.A. No. 503 of 1967. This writ appeal came before a Division Bench consisting of Ismail, J., (as he then was) and Palaniswami, J. The Division Bench, on an elaborate consideration expressed a view, quite contrary to that of Kailasam, J. on both the points. The Bench, while holding that the Electricity Department of Coimbatore Municipality was not an industrial establishment, falling within the scope of the Standing Orders Act expressed the rationale for such an approach thus:

(55) Therefore, disagreeing with Kailasam, J., we hold that the rules framed by the Provincial Government under Section 74 of the Municipalities Act prescribing the age of superannuation at 55 for the employees of the Municipal Councils will alone apply to the petitioners herein and not the Model Standing Order 21 prescribing the age of superannuation at 58.

The Bench decision in Coimbatore Municipality v. Thiruvenkataswami, is reported in I.L.R. (1973)1 Mad. 405 : 87 L.W. 462.

6. Certain erstwhile employees of the Electricity Department in Coimbatore Municipality, namely, N. Murugesan, M. Ramaswamy (Since deceased R. Jagadambal and R. Thirumurthy having been substituted in his place as per order of court dated 29.7.1987 in W.M.P. No. 2499 of 1986 herein), P. K. Kuppusamy, M. K. Kunjahamed, V. K. Subra-maniam, K. Chinnannan, K. G. Varghese, C. K. Natarajan and R. Venkataraman (Respondents 2 in W.P. Nos. 7452 to 7460 of 84 respectively) who were permitted to retire on their attainment of 55 years of age in superannuation, by issue of a notification came forward by filing writ petitions, being W.P. Nos. 712 of 76, 4476 of 1974, 4072 of 1974, 167 of 1977,171 of 1977,444 of 1977, 934 of 1978, 1670 of 1977 and 4113 of 1975 on similar grounds.

In these writ appeals, the two substantial questions that arise for consideration are, (1) whether a department of a municipality dealing in the distribution of electricity will come under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (Central Act 20 of 1946) and if so, whether the provisions of the said Act are applicable and (2) whether a department of the Municipality which is within the municipal administration having various other departments like that, can be singled out for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders Act, 1946). A Division Bench of this Court in Coimbatore Municipality v. Thiruvenkataswami I.L.R. (1973)1 Mad. 405: 87 L.W. 462, has held in respect of the very same municipality which is now litigating the matter, that the District Municipalities Act, being a special law, is applicable and not the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, which is a general law. The view that the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 is a general law as compared to the District Municipalities Act is no longer a good law in view of the categorical decision of the Supreme Court in U. P. State Electricity Board v. Hari Shankar Jain A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 65:1978 Lab.I.C. 1687: 1978 U.J. (S. C.) 659: (1978)4 S.C.C. 16: (1978)2 Lab.L.J. 399: 37 Fac. L.R. 280: 1978 S.C.C. (Lab.) 481: 1978 Lab.L.N. 514: (1979)1 S.C.R. 355:1978 Ser. L. C. 319, to the effect that the Industrial employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 is a special enactment and the District Municipalities Act has to be construed only as a general one. The view of a Division Bench of this Court in Coimbatore Municipality v. Thimvenkataswami, I.L.R. (1973)1 Mad. 405: 87 L.W. 462, that the particular department within the Municipality cannot attract the benefit under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, has to be decided by a Fuller Bench of this Court in view of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in Bhiwandiwala v. State of Bombay (1961)2 L.L.J. 77, Nagpur Corporation v. Its Employees and Dr. Devendra M. Surti v. State of Gujarat (1969)2 L.L.J. 116. Since we are of the view that the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Coimbatore Municipality v. Thiruvenkataswami, I.L.R. (1973)1 Mad. 405:87 L.W. 462, requires reconsideration in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above, we direct that this matter may be posted before a Fuller Bench on 5.4.1982 for a decision on the questions raised.