Back
Supreme Court Of India
ROHTAK AND HISSAR DISTRICTS ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh
Decided On : December 3, 1965
INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDING ORDERS) ACT, 1946 - SECTION 3(2), 4, 6, 10(2), 11(1), 15 - UTTAR PRADESH INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 4(A), 4(B), 4K, 6K, 6R - STANDING ORDERS - CERTIFICATION - SCOPE AND VALIDITY - MODEL STANDING ORDERS - CONFORMITY - REASONABLENESS AND FAIRNESS - ADDITION OF ITEMS TO SCHEDULE - AGE OF SUPERANNUATION OR RETIREMENT - PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION FOR LAY-OFF - APPEALS TO OUTSIDE AUTHORITIES - FINALITY OF DECISIONS - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an electric supply company, submitted draft standing orders to the Certifying Officer for certification under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The Certifying Officer made several changes in the draft standing orders and certified them. The appellant appealed to the Industrial Tribunal, which confirmed the order of the Certifying Officer. The appellant then filed an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the Model Standing Orders are permissible under the Act only in respect of matters which do not fall within the purview of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court further held that the addition of items to the Schedule of the Act by the appropriate Government is valid if they relate to conditions of employment. The Court also held that the provision in the certified standing orders for the age of superannuation or retirement without any provision for a suitable retirement benefit is invalid. The Court further held that the provision in the certified standing orders for the payment of compensation for lay-off is valid, as it is more favorable to the employees than the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act. The Court also held that the provisions in the certified standing orders for appeals to outside authorities and the finality of decisions of the Labour Commissioner are invalid.
Issues: 1. Whether the Model Standing Orders are permissible under the Act in respect of matters which fall within the purview of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 2. Whether the addition of items to the Schedule of the Act by the appropriate Government is valid? 3. Whether the provision in the certified standing orders for the age of superannuation or retirement without any provision for a suitable retirement benefit is valid? 4. Whether the provision in the certified standing orders for the payment of compensation for lay-off is valid? 5. Whether the provisions in the certified standing orders for appeals to outside authorities and the finality of decisions of the Labour Commissioner are valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Model Standing Orders are permissible under the Act only in respect of matters which do not fall within the purview of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. The addition of items to the Schedule of the Act by the appropriate Government is valid if they relate to conditions of employment. 3. The provision in the certified standing orders for the age of superannuation or retirement without any provision for a suitable retirement benefit is invalid. 4. The provision in the certified standing orders for the payment of compensation for lay-off is valid, as it is more favorable to the employees than the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act. 5. The provisions in the certified standing orders for appeals to outside authorities and the finality of decisions of the Labour Commissioner are invalid.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court modified the certified standing orders by striking down the provisions for the age of superannuation or retirement, the payment of compensation for lay-off, and the appeals to outside authorities and the finality of decisions of the Labour Commissioner. The rest of the order passed by the Appellate Authority was confirmed.
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR
( 1 ) THIS appeal has been brought to this Court by special leave and it challenges the validity of certain orders passed by the Certifying Authorities in respect of the draft Standing Orders which the appellant, The Rohtak Hissar District Electric Supply Co. Ltd. , had submitted to them for certification. Five respondents have been impleaded to this appeal; they are the State of U. P. Certifying Officer for Standing Orders and Labour Commissioner, U. P. , Kanpur, and three representatives of the employees respectively. At the hearing before us, the employees representatives have not appeared and the appeal has been contested by respondent No. 1 alone.
( 2 ) THE appellant is a Joint Stock Company incorporated under the Companies Act, and it has its registered office at Allahabad. The principal object for which this Company has been incorporated is to carry on the business or generation and distribution of electricity. In accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (No. 20 of 1946) (hereinafter called the Act), the appellant prepared draft Standing Orders in consultation with its employees and submitted the same to the Certifying Officer on the 24/12/1959, for certification. At that time, the workmen employed by the appellant had not formed any Union, and so the Labour Department held proceedings for the election of the three representatives from the said workmen. Normally, a Union representing the workmen would have been competent and qualified to represent the workmen in the certification proceedings: but since there was no Union in existence the Labour Department had to adopt the expedient of asking the workmen to elect three representatives. That is how respondents 3 to 5 came to be elected as the representatives of workmen. In the certification proceedings, these representatives took no objection to the draft Standing Orders submitted by the appellant. In fact, the said draft Standing Orders were submitted to the Certifying Officer on the basis that they had been agreed to by the appellant and its workmen.
( 3 ) THE Certifying Officer, however, examined the fairness and reasonableness of the provisions contained in the said draft Standing Orders and made several changes in them. The draft Standing Orders with the changes made by the Certifying Officer were accordingly certified on the 21/11/1962,
( 4 ) AGAINST the said order passed by the Certifying Officer, the appellant filed an appeal before the Industrial Tribunal, U. P. , Allahabad, which had been appointed the Appellate Authority under the Act. It was urged by the appellant before the Appellate Authority that the Certifying Officer was in error in making modification in the draft Standing Orders submitted to him for his certification, but the Appellate Authority did not accept the appellants contention and, in substance, confirmed the order passed by the Certifying Officer. In the result, the appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on the 29/06/1963. It is against this appellate order that the appellant has come to this Court by special leave.
( 5 ) ALONG with this appeal, Civil Appeal No. 1105 of 1964 has been placed before us for hearing and final disposal. This appeal arises between the appellant M/s. Amitabh Textile Mills Ltd. , and its workmen; and it raises substantially the same points as arise in Civil Appeal No. 164 of 1965. Mr. K. K. Jain, who appeared for the appellant in this appeal, has stated before us that the decision in this appeal will follow our decision in Civil Appeal No. 164 of 1965. That is why we do not propose to refer to the facts in this appeal nor deal with it separately.
( 6 ) THE first point which Mr. Setalvad has raised before us in Civil Appeal No. 164 of 1965 is of a general character. He contends that the Model Standing Orders which have been followed as a pattern by the certifying authorities in the present certification proceedings,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
