TWO ARTICLES ON LAW MAKING

SOME REFLECTIONS IN INDUSTRIAL JURISPRUDENCE : WHETHER THE SERVICE RULES, FRAMED BY STATUTORY BODIES, HAVE STATUTORY FORCE IN SERVICE JURISPRUDENCE ? : AN APEX JUDICIAL DICTUM,PART- I?

AJAYA KUMAR SAMANTARAY, EX-CENTRAL LABOUR SERVICE (HAG), Former Chief Labour Commissioner (Central)?

PRELUDE? : The esteemed readers are aware of the statutory bodies functioning in our country. The statutory bodies are the creatures of the respective statutes.? The name of some of the statutory bodies are National Dairy Development Board (NDDB), Airport Authority of India (AAI), Central Silk? Board (CSB), Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA), Sports Authority of India (SAI), Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO), Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and so on and so forth.? Such statutory bodies have been created under the respective Acts viz NDDB Act, RBI Act, LIC Act, TRAI Act and so on.? The statutory bodies, created under statute, for the proper functioning, make service rules or regulations for their officers/employees.? Sometimes, a question arises “as to whether the rules/regulations made by the statutory bodies do have statutory force at all? or, alternatively, whether the rules/regulations framed by the statutory bodies do have the force of Law and those are statutory in nature ? While discussing the clause “force of Law” the proviso under Article 13 of the Constitution of India which appears under the Fundamental Rights part (Part III) of our Constitution need be referred to? I would like to reproduce Article 13 for the convenience of the esteemed readers.? The Article reads as follows :-?

Article 13:- Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights. ?

(1) All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this part, shall to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.?

(2)?????? The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contraventions, be void.?

(3)?????? In this article, unless the context otherwise requires,-?

(a)?????? “Law” includes any ordinance, order, bye-laws, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usages having in the territory of India the force of Law.?

(b)?????? “Laws in force” includes laws passed or made by a Legislature or other competent authority (italicized by the Author? for emphasis) in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed, not withstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular? areas.

?(4)?????? Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under Article 368.?

??????????? The esteemed readers may note that I have underlined the words “or other competent authority”. The Law can be made by a Legislature or other Competent Authority duly empowered by a Legislature. The statutory bodies, created under the respective statutes, are the authorities who can make law (not legislative laws but regulations or rules) The word “Authorities” has been defined under Article 12 of the Constitution which is also under part III;? I think it would be in the fairness and fitness of the things to reproduce Article 12 for better clarity. The Article reads as follows :-

Article 12, Definition :- In this part, unless the context otherwise required, “ the State” include the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the states and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.?

VIEWS OF THE AUTHOR : Part III of the constitution of India deals with fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens by the “State”. What is a “State” has already been described? under Article 12.? Article 13 deals with different facets of Law and prohibits enactment of any such law which aims at abridging or restricting the fundamental rights of the citizens guaranteed under part III.? Since Article 12 and 13? appears in the same part(Part III) of the Constitution, in my considered and well thought views, the other authorities, instrumentalities and agencies of the State can also make laws for the day to day administration.? It may also be noted that in Article 12, we find the expressions, “State” as well as “Other Authorities”. Thus State and other Authorities are synonyms in constitutional as well as legal parlance. Alternatively, the statutory bodies, which fall under “Other Authorities” in Article 12 of the Constitution, have the competence to make law like the state, and the law (not legislative) made by such “Other Authorities” shall have the force of law as defined under Article 13 (3) (a) of the Constitution.?

??????????? In order to have more clarity we can discuss a case law of the Honorable Supreme Court of India in the case of Secretary, Oil and Natural Gas Commission Ltd and Another vrs. VU Warrier (2005-II-LLJ-1040).?

The? judgment has been delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 20th April 2005.?

FACTS OF THE CASE???????????

One, Shri VU Warrier was working with Oil and Natural Gas Commission as an Additional, Director. As an employee of the organization, he was allotted a residential accommodation on December 10,1982.He retired from the services with effect from February 28,1990 on attaining the age of superannuation. Following his retirement, he was supposed to vacate the quarters allotted to him.It may be noted here that as per the policy of the organization, an employee, after his retirement, can retain the quarters for

a period of four months. Accordingly, Shri Warrier was asked to give the vacant possession of the quarter by June 30, 1990 which Shri Warrier did not. He made representations to permit him to continue to occupy the quarter but his representations came to be rejected. Since he did not vacate the quarters, proceedings were initiated by the organization under Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.In the said proceedings, an undertaking was given by the retired employee that he would? vacate the quarters latest by May 30, 1991.Pursuant to the said under taking eviction proceedings were dropped.? Shri Warrier, then claimed the amount of gratuity of Rupees One lakh. But ONGC deducted an amount of Rs.53,832/- towards unauthorized occupation charges of official accommodation from July 1, 1990 to May 15, 1991 at the rate of Rs. 5,100/-, being 75 per cent of the basic pay, which was Rs.6,800/- at the time of his retirement. Shri Warrier approached the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay praying to quash the order of ONGC appropriating a sum of Rs.53,632/- as unauthorized occupation charges of official accommodation.? He also made a prayer to the Hon’ble High Court to direct ONGC to pay the entire gratuity along with interest.? The Hon’ble High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction allowed the petition filed by Shri VU Warrier.It may be noted that ONGC was absent during the proceedings.? This prompted ONGC to file Civil Appeal Nos.2766 and 2767 of 2005 in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.?

PLEADINGS BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT?

APPELLANT, ONGC LTD :?

·??????? The High Court was clearly wrong in allowing the petition and in directing the commission to pay the amount of gratuity? to the respondent with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.?

·???????? It was perfectly within the power of the commission to deduct the amount of liquidated damages towards unauthorized occupation of quarters by the respondent.? Such action cannot be said illegal, unlawful or otherwise improper.

???????? The corporation is a statutory corporation established by? an Act of Parliament and in exercise of statutory powers it had framed regulations.? Those regulations, therefore, are statutory in character, they have force of law and are enforceable.?

·??????? Though there are other pleadings, the same are not reproduced here as the theme of this article is to discuss the statutory force of the regulations framed by the statutory bodies.? The other pleadings will be discussed in the next article pertaining to “Recovery from Gratuity”.?

THE RESPONDENT:?

The following points were urged on behalf of the Respondent before the Hon’ble Supreme Court :?

·??????? The Hon’ble High Court has rightly held that pensionery and retrial benefits are the “right accrued”? in favour of an employee and not in the nature of “bounty”.?

·??????? It is not open to the commission to withhold any amount payable to the employee from gratuity and other terminal benefits.? The point is covered by sevsal decision of this court.? Following those decisions, an order was passed which deserves no interference.?

·??????? The High Court has granted liberty to the Commission by reserving right to the commission to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law to recover the amount of unauthorized occupation charges from the respondent.

?

ANALYSIS BY THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT?

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, has very well, analysed the pleadings/arguments advanced by the parties with reference to previous judicial pronouncements of the same court as well as the relevant regulation framed by ONGC.? It would be worthwhile to refer to regulation No.5 of Oil and Natural Gas Commission (Death, Retirement and Terminal Gratuity) Regulations, 1969.? The said regulation reads as follows :

?“Recovery of Dues.

The appointing authority, or any other authority empowered by the Commission in this behalf shall have the right to make recovery of commission’s dues before the payment of the death-Cum-retirement gratuity due in respect of an officer even without obtaining his consent or consent of the members of his family in the case of the deceased officer, as the case may be”.?

While quoting the above regulation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to Section 32 of Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 which empowered the commission to frame regulations.? It was already ruled by a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble.? Apex court in the case of Subhedar Singh vrs. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and Another (AIR 1975 SC 1331= (1975) 1 SCC 421 = 1975-I-LLJ-399) as follows:?

“….. the regulation framed by the commission under section 32 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commissions Act, 1959 are statutory in nature and they are enforceable in a court of Law.? They provide for eligibility of grant of gratuity, extent of gratuity, etc…..”.

? The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing the case of Shri Warrier, has also ruled as follows:

“The above regulation (Regulation 5) leaves no room of doubt that the Commission has right to effect recovery of its dues from any officer without his consent from gratuity…”.?

The Civil Appeals filed by ONGC were allowed and the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court was set aside which allowed the petition of VU Warrier ordering payment of full gratuity plus 6 percent interest. The relevant ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court is reproduced below :?

“In our judgment, considering all these facts, the High court was wholly unjustified in exercising extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner-respondent herein and on the ground also, the order passed by the High Court deserves to be set aside”.?

THE ASSUMPTIONS?

From the foregoing discussion, the following assumptions could be deduced:?

01.?????? The rules/regulations framed by the statutory bodies under a relevant proviso of a codified law shall have statutory force i.e. force of law.?

02.?????? Like other codified laws, the regulations made by statutory bodies are enforceable in the court of law.?

03.?????? By virtue of the regulations, the statutory bodies have the power to effect recovery of dues from the erring employees not withstanding the fact that certain laws/judicial pronouncements prohibit recovery of dues.?

Disclaimer : The ideas expressed in this article are of the author’s own No. agency governmental or otherwise including this journal subscribe to the views of the author.? This write-up should not be substituted for professional advice.

?

?

?

??SOME REFLECTIONS IN CONSTITUTIONAL, INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE JURISPRUDENCE : THE POWER OF LAW MAKING : WHETHER ONLY PARLIAMENT CAN MAKE? LAWS ?? - AN ANALYTICAL AND CONCEPTUAL APPROACH, PART- II

AJAYA KUMAR SAMANTARAY, EX- CENTRAL LABOUR SERVICE (HAG)

PRELUDE : I have penned an article on this subject on the case-law pertaining to Secretary, ONGC vrs. V U Warrier, AIR 2005 SC 3029, wherein I have made an attempt to justify that service rules or regulations made by Authorities under Article 12 of the Constitution of India or statutory bodies are laws. The judgment in this case was delivered in the year 2005. While working as Dy C L C (C) and Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act,1972 at Dhanbad, this question came before me repeatedly which prompted me to make further research. While doing so, the case of ?Indra Sawhney vrs. Union of India and Others, AIR 1993 SC 477 (popularly known as Mandal Commission’s case) came to my notice. The judgment has been delivered by a learned Constitution Bench which says that other authorities (other than Parliament) ?can make laws. I have reproduced the salient proviso of the judgment in this article. Hope, the esteemed readers would get an idea on the subject.

?????? The esteemed readers are aware that under some labour legislations quasi-judicial authorities have been created to adjudicate upon disputes under the respective labour laws.The illustrative example is as follows:

1.Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act ,1970 and Rules made thereunder : Under Rule 25 (2) (v) (a) and (b) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971, the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) is the authority to decide on the question of same and similar wages.The esteemed readers are aware that The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules,1971 or the rules made by States have not been enacted by the Parliament.The Parliament has made the law and has delegated the power to the Executive to make the rules and such rules are "subordinate legislations" and enforceable in Court of Law.Under Rules 25 (2) (v) (a) and (b), the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner is empowered to decide the concept of "same and similar" wages in respect of contract labourers.

2.Employees Compensation Act,1923 : Under this law, Employees Compensation Commissioner has been created who decide compensation payable to the workers who die or sustain injury during the course of employment.

3.Equal Remuneration? Act,1976 : Under this Act, Assistant Labour Commissioners are the Authorities and Regional Labour Commissioners are the Appellate Authorities for establishments under Central sphere.

4.Minimum Wages Act,1948 : Under this Act, Regional Labour Commissioner is the Authority to decide the cases of short payments and award compensation upto 10 times.

5.Payment of Gratuity Act,1972 : Under this Act, Controlling Authorities and Appellate authorities have been created to decide payment, non-payment or less payment of gratuity to the ex-employees

6.Payment of Wages Act,1936 : Under this law, Dy Chief Labour Commissioner (Cenrtal) and Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) are the authorities to decide the cases of non-payment of wages to the workers.

7.Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,1952 : Under this enactment, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is empowered to decide cases of EPF and if any individual or institution is not satisfied with the decision of the RPFC it can approach the Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal.

?????? Now we can refer to Government Companies (PSUs), statutory corporations (FCI, CWC, NDDB, NHAI, CSB,LIC of India, NABARD, AIIMS, IIMs, IITs, NITs and Public Sector Banks ...etc) who make service regulations to govern the service conditions of their employees. In this regard the question is "whether the service regulations made by such corporations or Government Companies or statutory bodies have statutory force ??

?????? Most of the times, the officers [ALC (C)s] receive gratuity cases.The ALC(C)s are the Controlling Authorities and the Dy CLC (C)s are the Appellate Authorities under the Act. In some cases, gratuity cases are received where gratuity is not paid to the employees by the employers as some employees are caught red-handed by CBI while demanding and accepting bribe. Sometimes, cases are filed by CBI (without trap or raid) on report from the employers. The employers say that demanding and accepting bribe or taking wrong decision in award of contracts to some parties to the detriment of the organisation is "moral turpitude" and in such cases gratuity is either not paid or withheld till the conclusion of judicial proceedings. In some cases disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the erring employees and during the pendency of the departmental proceedings the employees attain the age of superannuation and even after the superannuation the departmental proceedings are continued as per the provision of service rules. On? conclusion of such proceedings the erring employees are punished by way of removal or dismissal from services and the gratuity accrued to them are forfeited. In? such cases it is argued by the employees or their counsels that "the service rules are not statutory in nature" and cannot override the proviso of Payment of Gratuity Act,1972 and the forfeiture is illegal. What they mean to say being that even if the employee commits fraud, embezzlement and acts involving moral turpitude during the course of employment, their gratuity cannot be forfeited. Does it not appear funny ? The Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that "gratuity is paid to a person for rendering long and meritorious service". Can we ignore this ruling ? In support of their argument, they cite a case-law pertaining to Jaswant Singh Gill vrs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, (2007) 1 SCC 663 [Appeal (Civil) No. 4770 of 2006, decided on 10th November 2006].They quote the following lines from the judgment:        

?        

A statutory right accrued, thus, cannot be impaired by reason of a rule which does not have the force of a statute. It will bear repetition to state that the Rules framed by Respondent No. 1 or its holding company are not statutory in nature. The Rules in any event do not provide for withholding of retrial benefits or gratuity.        

This is a case pertaining to a subsidiary company of Coal India Ltd. In this case gratuity was not paid to Shri Jaswant Singh Gill as he was involved in? some financial irregularities and face departmental action.When the disciplinary proceedings were continuing he attained the age of superannuation but the enquiry was concluded and he was visted with punishment of reduction of increment and gratuity was not paid as according to the company, Shri Gill committed acts constituting moral turpitude.Now the question before us is :        

?        

Whether the service regulations (in case of Coal India Ltd it is called CDA Rules: Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules) farmed by Government Companies do not have statutory force ? or, alternatively,        

?        

Whether Government Companies are not competent to make regulations which have statutory force ?        

?        

I would like to answer the above questions as per the following judicial pronouncements:        

?        

(i) Secretary,Oil and natural Gas Corporations Ltd vrs V U Warrier, AIR 2005 SC 3039? : In this case, the Respondent, hri V U Warrier did not vacate the official accomodation allotted to him by ONGC.ONGC adjusted the penal rent and electricity from his gratuity.Bombay High Court ruled that penal rent cannot be recovered from the gratuity.On appeal by ONGC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that "as per ONGC's Service Regulation, penal rent can be recovered from gratuity".This means ONGC's regulations have the force of law and the regulations are statutory in nature.        

?        

(ii) Y.P.Sarabhai vrs Union Bank of India and Another, AIR 2006 SC 2316 : In this case, the Appellant had committed certain serious misconducts and faced dismissal from service. The case went upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Court ruled as follows:        

?        

Irrespective of order of dismissal of the appeal filed by the appellant, we feel that the request fervently made by the Counsel for the appellant should be sympathetically considered to meet the ends of justice. The appellant was dismissed from service on 4.9.1998. He is without pay for all these years in view of the order of dismissal. According to the appellant, his wife also died of cancer. It is settled law that a person who is dismissed from service is entitled to get only the provident fund but no gratuity. In the instant case, the total amount of provident fund payable to the appellant comes to Rs. 3,36,158/- and gratuity comes to Rs. 1,49,215/-. The appellant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2,60,228/- towards outstanding dues to the Bank for the various loans availed by him from the Bank. Therefore, after deducting sum of Rs. 2,60,228/- from and out of the total amount of provident fund of Rs. 3,36,158/-, the balance comes to Rs. 75,930/-. The appellant has now crossed 58 years of age and getting a new job at this juncture is also not possible for him. Considering the totality of all the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we feel that if we direct the Bank to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-, which includes the balance provident fund of Rs. 75,930/- after adjusting the loan amount due to the Bank, that would meet the ends of justice. We also make it clear that the appellant will have no other claims against the Bank hereafter. In order to give quietus to this long standing litigation, we direct the Bank to pay to the appellant by Demand Draft a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards full and final settlement of all claims between both the parties. If there is any discrepancy with regard to the amount payable to the appellant by way of provident fund and the loan amount, the appellant is at liberty to approach the Bank for any clarification and if such a letter is received from the appellant, the Bank shall consider the same and do the needful at the earliest.        

?        

(iii).State Bank of India vrs Ram Lal Bhaskar, JT?2011?(12)?SC?286 : (2011) 10 SCC 249 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1265070: In this case, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent while he was in service and the proceedings continued after his retirement.The High Court ruled that the proceedings were not maintainable but this was reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which ruled that if the proceedings have been initiated before the respondent ceased to be in employment of the bank such proceedings are maintainable.        

(iv) State of Andhra Pradesh and Others vrs. Sree Rama Rao,?AIR 1963 SC 1723: In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled as follows:

"The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under?Article 226?of the Constitution a Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant: it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under?Article 226?to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence."?

(v) Rabindranath Choubey vrs. Chairman-cum-M.D., Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Sambalpur, (2013) 16 SCC 411 : In this case, the Honble Supreme Court noticed the conflicting decisions in the case of Jaswant Singh Gill and Ramlal Bhaskernbsp; and directed to place the case before a Bench of 3 learned Judges.It would be quite pertinent to reproduce what the Honble Court has said:

?It is the case of the appellant that in the charge sheet served upon the respondent herein, there are very serious allegations of misconduct alleging dishonestly causing coal stock shortage amounting to Rs. 31.65 crores, and thereby causing substantial loss to the employer. If such a charge is proved and punishment of dismissal is given thereupon, the provisions of?Section 4(6)?of the Payment of Gratuity would naturally get attracted and it would be within the discretion of the appellant to forfeit the gratuity payable to the respondent. As a corollary one can safely say that the employer has right to withhold the gratuity pending departmental inquiry. However, as explained above, this course of action is available only if disciplinary authority has necessary powers to impose the penalty of dismissal upon the respondent even after his retirement. Having regard to our discussion above of Jaswant Singh Gill (supra) and Ram Lal Bhaskar (supra), this issue needs to be considered authoritatively by a larger Bench. We, therefore, are of the opinion that present appeal be decided by a Bench of three Judges.?

? 

THE POWER OF LAW OR RULE MAKING:        

?        

?????? After the discussing the above, it is felt imperative to discuss the law making power of the Executive viz. whether Government companies, which are agencies, instrumentalities of State or other Authorities, can make law/rules/regulations for? governance of the institutions ? In this context, it is felt necessary to discuss Article 12 and 13 of the Constitution of India which reads as follows:        

Article 12 : Definition

In this Part, unless the context otherwise required, “the State” includes the Governmental and?Parliament of India?and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.

Article 13 : Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights

(1) All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.

(2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.

(3) In this article, unless the context otherwise required, –

(a) “law” includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law;

(b) “laws in force” includes laws passed or made by a Legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India (highlight by the Author for emphasis) before the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas.

(4) Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under article 368.

?????? For the convenience of the esteemed readers, I have reproduced both the Articles verbatim. Government Companies, Statutory or Autonomous Bodies or Registered Societies, created to discharge Governmental functions are "State"? "Agency or Instrumentalities of State"? or "Other Authorities" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and are competent to make law (rules or regulations) within the meaning of Article 13 (3) (a) and (b) of the Constitution of India and such law (rules or regulation) would have statutory force.

?????? The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of? Chairman-cum-M D,Coal India Ltd vrs Anant Saha, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1415650, has stated that "CDA Rules are statutory rules".

????? The above apart, a learned Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India , in the case of ?Indra Sawhney vrs. Union of India and Others, AIR 1993 SC 477? has held as follows:

Question 1(a):

Whether the `provision' in?Article 16 (4)?must necessarily be made by the Parliament/Legislature?

Constitution of India -?Article 16 (4), 12?and?13 (3) (a) - 'Provision' in?Article 16 (4) -?Power of 'State' to make any provision' - Held (per Kania, C.J. and Venkatachalliah, Ahmadi and Jeevan Reddy, JJ., Pandian, Kuldip Singh and Sawant, JJ. concurring), it need not necessarily be made by the Parliament or any State Legislature - Govt. can introduce reservation by Executive Orders such as the impugned Official Memorandums (OMs) - Having regard to the meaning and interpretation of State' in?Article 12?and of `law' in?Article 13(3)(a)?local bodies, statutory corporations and other instrumentalities of the State are themselves competent to make such a provision, if so advised - Abuse of such power controlled by the requirement of the exercise to be an objective one and for only the classes satisfying the criteria - Rule of ultra vires will also apply - Per Sahai, J., such executive orders should have been laid before Parliament - Words and phrases

THE CONCLUSION:

???? In view of what have been discussed hereinbefore, the Author is of the firm opinion that :

1.PSUs/Government Companies, Statutory Corporations or Bodies or Local Authorities coming under Article 12 of the Constitution of India are competent to make law for their governance.

2.The law(s) made by the above bodies will have statutory force and enforceable in the Court of Law.

3.The Service Regulations made by the above bodies are law and will have statutory force.

?

?

?

?