# Superintending Engineer, Faizabad Circle & Ors v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Faizabad & Ors

- **Citation:** J. Misc. Single No. 6548 of 2010
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-03-04
- **Case number:** J. Misc. Single No. 6548 of 2010
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/superintending-engineer-faizabad-circle-ors-v-presiding-officer-labour-court-u-46303
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law-Industrial Dispute-Government
Departments -Public Work Departmentexcluded from definition of industryimpugned
award
did
not
considered
preliminary objection of maintainabilityquashed-W.P. allowed.

Held, Since in the judgment rendered in
Bangalore Water Supply case (supra), the
majority
opinion
excluded
Government
departments which may otherwise be covered
by the expansive definition of 'industry' given in
Paragraph
140
to
143,
if
there
are
constitutionally
and
competently
enacted
legislative provisions, governing such activities
as undertaken by such Departments; the Public
Works 16 Department stands excluded from the
expansive definition of 'industry' as given by the
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board
case (supra). (para 22) (E-9)

Cases cited:

## Text

1130 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

39. In view of above, writ petition
fails and is dismissed.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1130
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.03.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA,
J.

Misc. Single No. 6548 of 2010
&
Misc. Single No. 4074 of 2010

Superintending Engineer, Faizabad Circle
& Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P.,
Faizabad & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Standing Counsel

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Kailash Nath Tewari, Y.S. Lohit

Civil Law-Industrial Dispute-Government
Departments -Public Work Departmentexcluded from definition of industryimpugned
award
did
not
considered
preliminary objection of maintainabilityquashed-W.P. allowed.

Held, Since in the judgment rendered in
Bangalore Water Supply case (supra), the
majority
opinion
excluded
Government
departments which may otherwise be covered
by the expansive definition of 'industry' given in
Paragraph
140
to
143,
if
there
are
constitutionally
and
competently
enacted
legislative provisions, governing such activities
as undertaken by such Departments; the Public
Works 16 Department stands excluded from the
expansive definition of 'industry' as given by the
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board
case (supra). (para 22) (E-9)

Cases cited:
1. Writ Petition No.4382 (SS) of 2001: St. of
U.P. & ors. Vs. Harish Chandra, decided on
31.7.2015

2. St. of Mah. & anr Vs. Sarva Shramik Sangh,
Sangli & ors., 2013 (16) SSC 16

3. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board
Vs. A. Rajappa (1978) 2 SCC 213 (Relied
upon)

4. State of U.P. Vs Jai Bir Singh, (2005) 5 SCC 1

5. Writ Petition No.6910 (MS) of 2002:
Superintending
Engineer
Provincial
Division
P.W.D. Barabanki Vs Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, Lucknow decided on 20.3.2017

6. Sant Kumar Dubey Vs. Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal (IV), Uttar Pradesh, Agra &
ors., 1997 Labour and Industrial Cases 777

7.St. of U.P. & ors., Vs. Deep Chandra and
others (2004) 1 UPLBEC 816

8. U.O.I. & ors. Vs. Ranbir Singh Rathore & ors.,
(2006) 11 SCC 696

9.N.H.A.I. Vs. Ganga Enterprises & anr., (2003)
7 SCC 410

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned counsel for the
respondents.

2. These writ petitions have been
taken up together by this Court as they
relate to the question whether an Industrial
Adjudication
case
could
have
been
entertained by the Labour Court on
reference being made to it regarding daily
wage workmen engaged by the Public
Works Department on muster roll and
whether the Public Works Department of
the State of U.P. can be considered to be an
industry under the Industrial Disputes Act.
3-5 All. Superintending Engineer Faizabad Circle & Ors. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Faizabad & Ors. 1131

3. The facts, in brief, of each of these
writ petitions are being stated here in
below.

4. Writ Petition No.6548 (MS) of
2010 challenges an order passed by the
respondent
no.1
dated
29.1.2009
in
Adjudication Case No.16 of 1998 (Krishna
Prasad versus Superintending Engineer,
Faizabad Circle, Faizabad and others)
whereby the respondent no.1 has issued
directions that respondent no.3 shall be
entitled to reinstatement and all service
benefits. In this petition, Krishna Prasad
was initially engaged as a Beldar on daily
wage basis in 1981 and disengaged after
November, 1989. After seven years of such
disengagement, he approached the Deputy
Labour Commissioner, Faizabad Region,
Faizabad under Section 2(A) of the
Industrial Disputes Act (for short ''the Act')
on 15.6.1996. The conciliation attempt
having
failed,
the
Deputy
Labour
Commissioner referred the matter to the
respondent no.1, which was registered as
Adjudication Case No.16 of 1998. After the
written statement was filed by Krishna
Prasad, the petitioners also filed a written
statement, in which, they specifically
disputed the applicability of the Industrial
Disputes Act to Public Works Department
of the State of U.P.. It was submitted that
the engagement of daily wage workers
takes place for carrying out work assigned
by the Government of U.P. under the
provisions of Paragraph 429 and 430 of
Part-I,
Volume-VI
of
the
Financial
Handbook and Muster Roll is maintained
and wages are paid at the prescribed rates
under the Minimum Wages Act. The daily
wage workers are engaged to meet the
exigencies of work and as per availability
of budget and since there was no work
available,
the
respondent
no.3
was
disengaged in 1989.

5. This Court has perused the written
statement filed by the employers in which,
in paragraph 1 and 2, it was clearly stated
that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does
not apply to the Public Works Department
of State of U.P. The workers are engaged
on the basis of Paragraphs 429 and 430 of
the Financial Handbook, Volume-VI and
payment is charged to the works under
paragraph 667 of the Financial Handbook.

6. The respondent No.1 did not
consider the preliminary objection raised
regarding
maintainability
of
the
adjudication case first, but went on with the
adjudication of the case on the basis of
written statement and oral evidence of the
respondent no.3 that he had worked w.e.f.
15.12.1981 upto 15.7.1989 continuously
and that his name appeared at Serial
No.182 in the seniority list of 270 workmen
maintained by the establishment. No notice
was given to him nor any retrenchment
compensation
was
given
before
his
disengagement on 15.7.1989. Since after
the filing of the written statement by the
employer, no attempt was made to appear
before the respondent no.1 for cross
examination of the workman despite
several opportunities being given to them,
the respondent no.1 relied upon evidence
produced by the workmen to come to a
conclusion that the respondent no.3 had
been disengaged on 15.7.1989 in violation
of section 6N of the Act. A direction was
issued
for
his
reinstatement
and
consequential benefits to be given to him in
the Award dated 29.1.2009.

7. It appears that no interim order was
granted by this Court in this writ petition
and the workman was reinstated by the
petitioners subject to final orders being
passed
by
this
Court.
The
Office
Memorandum dated 7.5.2012 putting back
1132 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the respondent no.3 into service on daily
wage basis at the rate of Rs.100/- per day
has been brought on record by the
respondent no.3 by filing an application on
4.9.2017.

8. In Writ Petition No.4074 (MS) of
2010, the petitioners have challenged the
award
dated
10.11.2009
passed
in
Adjudication Case No.12 of 2002.

9. In the said writ petition, the case of
the petitioners is that the respondent no.1
was engaged as daily wage labourer on
1.12.1984
and
was
disengaged
in
November, 1986. The respondent no.1
raised an industrial dispute before the
Assistant Labour Commissioner, Faizabad
in 2001 and after failure of conciliation
proceedings, the matter was referred to the
Labour
Court
for
adjudication
on
25.12.2002. The written statement was
filed by the petitioners wherein, they stated
clearly in Paragraph 1 and 6 that the
Industrial Disputes Act does not apply to
the Public Works Department of the State
of U.P. which is a Government department
where engagement of labourers is done as
per Paragraph 429 and 430 of the Financial
Handbook Volume-VI and that the Public
Works Department being a Department of
the Government of U.P. carries out work
assigned to it on a cost to cost basis without
any profit or loss.

The Labour Court however did not think it
appropriate to decide the preliminary objection
raised by the employer as to the maintainability
of the adjudication case, but went on to decide
the matter on the basis of evidence led both oral
and documentary by the respondent no.1 and
came to the conclusion that the respondent no.1
had been retrenched without following the
procedure prescribed under Section 6N of the
Act and was entitled for reinstatement.
However, because of passage of time, full back
wages were not given by the Labour Court,
Faizabad, but a direction was issued for
payment of 20% of the back-wages only.

10. This Court at the time of hearing the
writ petition as fresh, did not pass any interim
order. Several applications for grant of interim
relief were filed as execution case had been
initiated by the respondent no.1. When these
applications were not taken up, the petitioners
reinstated the respondent no.1 on 15.4.2015 as
daily wage Beldar. The respondent no.1 moved
an application for modification of the award by
this Court and dismissal of the writ petition with
the direction that the respondent no.1 be
engaged as chowkidar as in the oral evidence
filed by the employer's witness before the
Labour Court, it had come out that the
respondent no.1 was lastly engaged as
chowkidar. In the absence of any interim order,
the Deputy Labour Commissioner continued
with the execution proceedings with regard to
the back wages as granted by the Labour Court
in the Award and attachment of the properties
in the office of the Executive Engineer took
place, as a result whereof, more than one lakh
rupees was deposited before the Labour Court
and an application bearing C.M. Application
No.71364 of 2010 was moved before this
Court. This Court by an order dated 8.9.2015
directed the Deputy Labour Commissioner to
release the property, which had been attached, if
the due amount had been deposited by the
petitioners, but the amount so deposited by the
petitioners would not be released in favour of
the respondent no.1, although he may be
allowed to continue in service in terms of the
Award.

11. From the order sheet, it is evident
that respondent no.1 died on 19.3.2017 and
a substitution application was moved by his
widow Mrs. Durgawati along with his son
and daughter, who are both minors. This
3-5 All. Superintending Engineer Faizabad Circle & Ors. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Faizabad & Ors. 1133
Court allowed the substitution application
by its order dated 6.9.2017.

12. During the course of argument in
these two writ petitions, learned counsel for
the respondents Mr. Y.S. Lohit has relied
upon several judgments of this Court and of
the Supreme Court to submit that these writ
petitions be dismissed.

13. This Court has perused the
judgments cited by both learned counsel for
the petitioners and the learned counsel for
the respondents. No doubt, in Writ Petition
No.4382 (SS) of 2001: State of U.P. and
others vs. Harish Chandra, decided on
31.7.2015, this Court had dismissed a
similar petition filed by the Irrigation
Department, placing reliance upon the
observations made by the Supreme Court in
State of Maharashtra and another versus
Sarva Shramik Sangh, Sangli and others,
2013 (16) SSC 16, wherein it was observed
that the mere fact that correctness of the
decision in the case of Bangalore Water
Supply and Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa
(1978) 2 SCC 213 had been referred to a
larger bench in State of U.P. versus Jai Bir
Singh, (2005) 5 SCC 1, will not come in the
way of the Court in following the existing
law now covered by the seven Judges
Constitution Bench judgment in Bangalore
water supply case (supra), which is
presently holding the field. Similarly, a
coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ
Petition
No.6910
(MS)
of
2002:
Superintending
Engineer
Provincial
Division
P.W.D.
Barabanki
versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Lucknow
has
dismissed
the
writ
petition
on
20.3.2017 by observing that the judgment
rendered
by
the
Supreme
Court
in
Bangalore water supply case (supra) has
been followed in two coordinate Bench
decisions in Sant Kumar Dubey versus
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (IV),
Uttar Pradesh, Agra and others: 1997
Labour and Industrial Cases 777 and in
State of U.P. and others vs. Deep Chandra
and others (2004) 1 UPLBEC 816, wherein
it has been held that the Public Works
Department of the Government of U.P. is
an industry and covered by the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act as the petitioners
therein had not taken the trouble to file any
written statement before the Presiding
Officer, Labour Court and there was no
question of showing any interference in the
Award.

14. This Court, however, having gone
through the written statement filed by the
writ
petitioners
herein
in
both
the
adjudication cases before the Labour Court,
finds that a preliminary objection was
raised regarding maintainability of the
adjudication case before the Labour Court
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, yet
the preliminary objection was ignored and
orders were passed in favour of the private
respondents only on the basis of oral and
documentary evidence led by the workmen.

15. In Union of India and others
versus Ranbir Singh Rathore and others
(2006) 11 SCC 696, the Supreme Court had
observed thus:-

"42. .........In any event we feel
that the High Court's approach is clearly
erroneous. The present appellants in the
counter-affidavit
filed
had
raised
a
preliminary objection as regards the
maintainability of the writ petitions and
had requested the High Court to grant
further opportunity if the necessity so
arises to file a detailed counter-affidavit
after the preliminary objections were
decided. The High Court in fact in one of
the orders clearly indicated that the
1134 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
preliminary objections were to be decided
first. But strangely it did not do so."

16. In National Highways Authority
of India versus Ganga Enterprises and
another, (2003) 7 SCC 410, the Supreme
Court in Paragraph-6 observed thus:-

"6. The respondent then filed a
writ petition in the High Court for
refund of the amount. On the pleadings
before it, the High Court raised two
questions
viz.:
(a)
whether
the
forfeiture of security deposit is without
authority of law and without any
binding contract between the parties
and also contrary to Section 5 of the
Contract Act; and (b) whether the writ
petition is maintainable in a claim
arising out of a breach of contract.
Question (b) should have been first
answered as it would go to the root of
the matter. The High Court instead
considered Question (a) and then chose
not to answer Question (b). In our view,
the answer to Question (b) is clear. It is
settled law that disputes relating to
contracts cannot be agitated under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
It has been so held in the cases of
Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil
[(2000) 6 SCC 293] , State of U.P. v.
Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd. [(1996)
6 SCC 22] and Bareilly Development
Authority v. Ajai Pal Singh [(1989) 2
SCC 116] . This is settled law. The
dispute in this case was regarding the
terms
of
offer.
They
were
thus
contractual disputes in respect of which
a writ court was not the proper forum.
Mr Dave, however, relied upon the
cases of Verigamto Naveen v. Govt. of
A.P.
[(2001)
8
SCC
344]
and
Harminder Singh Arora v. Union of
India [(1986) 3 SCC 247]. These,
however, are cases where the writ court
was enforcing a statutory right or duty.
These cases do not lay down that a writ
court can interfere in a matter of
contract only. Thus on the ground of
maintainability the petition should have
been dismissed."

17. Regarding the validity or
otherwise of the preliminary objection
raised by the petitioners, this Court has
gone through the judgment in Bangalore
Water Supply case (supra) carefully.
While considering what constitutes the
expression ''industry' after critically
examining
the
previous
decisions,
Justice Krishna Iyer, who delivered the
main judgment i.e. opinion on his
behalf and on behalf of two other
Judges, has observed in Para-139 to 143
as follows:

""139. ... So we proceed to
formulate the principles, deducible from
our
discussion,
which
are
decisive,
positively and negatively, of the identity of
''industry' under the Act. We speak, not
exhaustively, but to the extent covered by
the debate at the Bar and, to that extent,
authoritatively, until overruled by a larger
Bench or superseded by the legislative
branch.

I

140. ''Industry', as defined in
Section 2(j) and explained in Banerji [D.N.
Banerji v. P.R. Mukherjee, 1953 SCR 302 :
AIR 1953 SC 58] has a wide import.

(a) Where (i) systematic activity,
(ii) organised by cooperation between
employer and employee (the direct and
substantial element is chimerical) (iii) for
the production and/or distribution of goods
and services calculated to satisfy human
wants and wishes (not spiritual or religious
but inclusive of material things or services
3-5 All. Superintending Engineer Faizabad Circle & Ors. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Faizabad & Ors. 1135
geared to celestial bliss i.e. making, on a
large scale prasad or food), prima facie,
there is an ''industry' in that enterprise.

(b) Absence of profit motive or
gainful objective is irrelevant, be the venture in
the public, joint, private or other sector.

(c) The true focus is functional and
the decisive test is the nature of the activity with
special
emphasis
on
employer-employee
relations.

(d) If the organisation is a trade or
business it does not cease to be one because of
philanthropy animating the undertaking.

II

141. Although Section 2(j) uses
words of the widest amplitude in its two limbs,
their meaning cannot be magnified to
overreach itself.

(a) ''Undertaking' must suffer a
contextual and associational shrinkage as
explained in Banerji [D.N. Banerji v. P.R.
Mukherjee, 1953 SCR 302 : AIR 1953 SC 58]
and in this judgment; so also, service, calling
and the like. This yields the inference that all
organised activity possessing the triple elements
in I (supra), although not trade or business,
may still be ''industry' provided the nature of the
activity (emphasis in original) viz. the
employer-employee basis, bears resemblance to
what we find in trade or business. This takes
into the fold of ''industry' undertakings, callings
and services, adventures ''analogous to the
carrying (emphasis in original) on the trade or
business'.
All
features,
other
than
the
methodology of carrying on the activity viz. in
organising the cooperation between employer
and employee, may be dissimilar. It does not
matter, if on the employment terms there is
analogy.

III

142. Application of these guidelines
should not stop short of their logical reach by
invocation of creeds, cults or inner sense of
incongruity or outer sense of motivation for or
resultant of the economic operations. The
ideology of the Act being industrial peace,
regulation and resolution of industrial disputes
between employer and workmen, the range of
this statutory ideology must inform the reach of
the statutory definition. Nothing less, nothing
more.

(a) The consequences are (i)
professions, (ii) clubs, (iii) educational
institutions, (iv) cooperatives, (v) research
institutes, (vi) charitable projects, and (vii)
other kindred adventures, if they fulfil the
triple tests listed in I (supra), cannot be
exempted from the scope of Section 2(j).

(b) A restricted category of
professions, clubs, cooperatives and even
gurukulas and little research labs, may
qualify for exemption if, in simple ventures,
substantially and, going by the dominant
nature
criterion,
substantively,
no
employees are entertained but in minimal
matters, marginal employees are hired
without
destroying
the
non-employee
character of the unit.

(c) If, in a pious or altruistic
mission many employ themselves, free or
for small honoraria or like return, mainly
drawn by sharing in the purpose or cause,
such as lawyers volunteering to run a free
legal services clinic or doctors serving in
their spare hours in a free medical centre
or ashramites working at the bidding of the
holiness,
divinity
or
like
central
personality, and the services are supplied
free or at nominal cost and those who serve
are not engaged for remuneration or on the
basis of master and servant relationship,
then, the institution is not an industry even
if stray servants, manual or technical, are
hired.
Such
eleemosynary
or
like
undertakings alone are exempt -- not other
generosity,
compassion,
developmental
passion or project.

IV

143. The dominant nature test:
1136 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(a) Where a complex of activities,
some of which qualify for exemption, others
not, involves employees on the total
undertaking, some of whom are not
''workmen' as in University of Delhi case
[University of Delhi v. Ram Nath, (1964) 2
SCR 703 : AIR 1963 SC 1873] or some
departments are not productive of goods
and services if isolated, even then, the
predominant nature of the services and the
integrated nature of the departments as
explained in Corpn. of Nagpur [ Corpn. of
the City of Nagpur v. Employees, (1960) 2
SCR 942 : AIR 1960 SC 675] will be the
true test. The whole undertaking will be
''industry' although those who are not
''workmen' by definition may not benefit by
the status.

(b) Notwithstanding the previous
clauses,
sovereign
functions,
strictly
understood, (alone) qualify for exemption,
not the welfare activities or economic
adventures undertaken by Government or
statutory bodies.

(c)
Even
in
departments
discharging sovereign functions, if there
are units which are industries and they are
substantially severable, then they can be
considered to come within Section 2(j).

(d)
Constitutional
and
competently enacted legislative provisions
may well remove from the scope of the Act
categories which otherwise may be covered
thereby." (Emphasis supplied)

18. It is undisputed that muster roll
employees are engaged by the Department
of Irrigation and Public Works and other
such Departments which carry out welfare
activities relating to infrastructure etc. on
behalf of the State Government in terms of
Paragraph 429 and 430 of Volume-VI PartI of Financial Handbook.

19. The Financial Handbook is a set
of fundamental rules which govern the
administration
of
not
only
Central
Government
but
also
the
State
Government. Volume-VI of the Financial
Handbook deals with several matters
including the matters relating to how
contracts are to be signed with regard to
construction work and how construction
work itself is to be carried out by such
Departments
as
the
Department
of
Irrigation and Public Works.

20. The muster roll employees having
been engaged under Paragraph 429 and
430, and work charge employees being
engaged under Paragraph 630 of the
Financial Handbook, are governed by the
statutory provisions as given in the
Financial Handbook with regard to their
engagement
and
monitory
benefits
admissible to them on such engagement.

21.

The
Financial
Handbook
containing Fundamental Rules are in the
nature of ''law' as defined in Article 13 of
the Constitution of India and they carry
statutory force.

22. Since in the judgment rendered in
Bangalore Water Supply case (supra), the
majority opinion excluded Government
departments which may otherwise be
covered by the expansive definition of
''industry' given in Paragraph 140 to 143, if
there are constitutionally and competently
enacted legislative provisions, governing
such activities as undertaken by such
Departments; the Public Works Department
stands
excluded
from
the
expansive
definition of ''industry' as given by the
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage
Board case (supra).
3-5 All. M/s Rathi Steel & Power Ltd. (Furnace Division) Vs. U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.
1137

23. Having perused the Awards
impugned passed by the Labour Courts in
these two writ petitions, the Court finds no
mention at all or consideration of the
preliminary objection raised with regard to
the maintainability of the Adjudication case
under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act by
the Labour Court concerned.

24. The Awards dated 29.1.2009 and
10.11.2009 are set aside. However, since
the respondents have been engaged in the
absence of any interim order as daily wage
Beldars, the benefit granted to them by the
authorities during the pendency of these
writ petitions shall not be taken away from
them. The amount of back wages deposited
by the petitioners in Writ Petition No.4074
(MS) of 2010 before the Labour Court,
shall be refunded to them on an appropriate
application being moved by them.

25. The writ petitions stand allowed
to this extent.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1137
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.03.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ KUMAR JAISWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR,
J.

Misc. Bench No. 6950 of 2020

M/s Rathi Steel & Power Ltd. (Furnace
Division) ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Vishal Dixit, Ankit Tripathi, Ashok Tripathi,
Ashok Kumar Prajapati, Devendra Kumar,
Kamlesh Kumar
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sanjay Singh, Shree Prakash Singh

Civil
law-U.P.Electricity
Supply
Code,2005-
Cl.4.49Petitioner
prayed
for
enhancement
of
load-bank
guarantee
was
demanded
by
Respondent-payment
of
additional
security is a condition for release of
additional
load-non
paymentadditional load not to be releasedsupply can be disconnected-event of
deposit of additional security-cannot
be said to be any dues recovered from
Petitioner-demand of bank guarrantee
or cash for grant of additional load is
perfectly justified.W.P. dismissed.

Held, the scheme of the Act and the Code
does not indicate that any process for
recovery
of
additional
security
is
contemplated or provided for because of
the reason that the consequences for non
deposit of additional security has been
clearly provided in the Act itself. The
payment
of
additional
security
being
condition for release of additional load, in
the event it is not paid the additional load
is not to be released and further supply can
be discontinued. No more is contemplated
with regard to non payment of additional
security. Thus, we are of the view that in
the event of deposit of additional security
by the petitioner for grant of additional load
cannot be said to be any dues, which is to
be recovered from the petitioner and
therefore, the demand by the respondents
of giving bank guarantee or cash for grant
of additional load is perfectly justified.
(para 22) (E-9)

Cases Cited:

1. Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. Vs. A.P. State
Electricity Board and another reported in 1993
Supp (4) S.C.C. 136

2. Gainda Ram Vs.Vs. Municipal Corporation of
Delhi Vs. [(2010) 10 SCC 715]

3. Krishnan Kakkanth Vs. Govt. of Kerala
[(1997) 9 SCC 495]