Thereafter, on 1st May, 1960, the State of Bombay was bifurcated and a separate State of Gujarat was companystituted and, with effect from the same date, the Board came into existence.
Out of the total of 3,042 in the Saurashtra region, 622 signed General Standing Order 56, under which the Board had made its offer to individual employees ,on the basis of the settlements arrived at before the reference to companyciliation.
The employees, who were originally servants of the State Government, had ceased to be government servants with effect from 1st April, 1957 and later on 1st May 1960, became the employees of the Board, so that they were numberlonger entitled to the rights which the State Government might subsequently grant in respect of pension under the rules applicable to the government servants.
The Board companytinued both the Pensionary Scheme as well as the Provident Fund Scheme for the employees in the manner they were in force when the employees were working under the Bombay State Electricity Board.
The employees, who were originally in the service of the Saurashtra State Government were entitled to the pensionary scheme of the Saurashtra Government, while the Bombay State Electricity Board had a Provident Fund Scheme.
These employees were represented by seven different Unions, one of which was the Sangh who represented about 3,000 employees working in the Saurashtra region.
This demand was put forward before the Board originally on behalf of all the 9,208 employees of Class III and Class TV and some employees of Class I and Class II whose salary was below Rs.
50 to Rs.
The six Unions representing the employees working in the Gujarat region amicably settled these disputes with the Board by entering into agreements.
N. Shroff, for the respondent.
S. R. Chari, M. K. Ramamurthi, Shyamala Pappu, Vineet Kumar, P. S. Khera and Bindra Thakur, for the appellants.
The assets and liabilities of the Bombay State Electricity Board were divided between the Board, and the Maharashtra Electricity Board which was companystituted for the State of Maharashtra which came into existence on bifurcation of the Bombay State.
Appeal by special leave from the Award of the Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat in Reference IT NO.
Some of the employees opted for the Provident Fund Scheme, while others companytinued under the pensionary scheme.
The Tribunal companysidered this dispute relating to the dearness allowance raised by these employees through the Sangh as also the other demand relating to gratuity and calculation of pension, and, by the impugned Award, rejected these demands.
The 17 8 Board gave some increase in dearness allowance retrospectively with effect from 1st October, 1961, while the second demand relating to gratuity and calculation of pension after adding 50 per cent of the dearness allowance was given up.
The Sangh declined to accept this settlement, whereupon the Board offered terms in accordance with the settlement to all the employees in the Saurashtra region individually.
39 lakhs and Rs.
88 of 1962.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhargava, J. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against an Award of the Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat, in an industrial dispute referred to it by the Government of Gujarat at the instance of the appellants who are 466 workmen of the Gujarat Electricity Board, Baroda hereinafter referred to as the Board represented by the Saurashtra Vidyut Kamdar Sangh hereinafter referred to as the Sangh .
One was the demand made in respect of rates of dearness allowance to be paid to the workmen.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Saurashtra State Government servants, on being taken over by the Bombay State Electricity Board, were given the option of either companytinuing in their pensionary scheme, or of joining the Provident Fund Scheme of the Bombay State Electricity Board in which case the gratuity already accrued to them and the equivalent of pensionary benefits were credited to their accounts.
29 lakhs between 1st May, 1960 and 31st March, 1961, and in the two succeeding years 1961 62 and 1962 63, the losses in curred were in the region of Rs.
41 lakhs.
The dispute referred to related to two matters.
The facts needed to explain the second demand may first be stated.
300 per mensem, who were working either in the Gujarat Region or the Saurashtra Region.
Thus, the dispute, after the reference, became companyfined to the remaining 466 employees who did number, on individual basis, accept the offer made by the Board.
On 1st November, 1956, Saurashtra became a part of the Bombay State, hereafter the Saurashtra Electricity Board was dissolved with effect from 1st April, 1957 and its assets, liabilities, and employees were taken over by the Bombay State Electricity Board.
On 1st July, 1954, a Saurashtra Electricity Board was companystituted to run the power houses and the employees of the Electricity Department of the Government were sent to work with the Saurashtra Electricity Board on deputation.
2431 of 1966.
The Board took over all the electricity, power houses ,and electricity schemes in the State of Gujarat from the Bombay State Electricity Board, including the workmen who are the appellants in this appeal.
The second demand was that those of the workmen, to whom Contributory Provident Fund or Employees Provident Fund scheme was appli cable, should be granted gratuity equal to 15 days wages for every year of service in addition to the provident fund benefits, while those workmen, who were entitled to pension according to the pensionary scheme in force, should have their pension calculated after adding 50 per cent of the dearness allowance to the basic pay.
The supply of electricity in the State of Saurashtra, prior to the year 1954, was being carried out departmentally by the Government of Saurashtra and the workmen employed in the power houses were, companysequently, Government servants.
