1. Disciplinary proceedings initiated against a workman under general service rules instead of certified standing orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 1186
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.
Union of India and Others – Appellants
Versus
K. Suri Babu – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1320 of 2010
WITH
Union of India and Others – Appellants
Versus
M. Kiran Kumar – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1323 of 2010
Decided On : 29-11-2023
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Protection of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 cannot be denied to a workman merely for reason that employer grants him other services benefits such as pension, gratuity etc. under CCA Rules.
(2) CCA Rules, 1965 are general Rules whereas Standing Orders are Special Rules and Standing Orders would override CCA Rules, 1965.
(1) Protection of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 cannot be denied to a workman merely for reason that employer grants him other services benefits such as pension, gratuity etc. under CCA Rules.
(2) CCA Rules, 1965 are general Rules whereas Standing Orders are Special Rules and Standing Orders would override CCA Rules, 1965.
Subject
Labor Law - Labour and Industrial Law
Act Referred
CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL RULES: R.3
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.309, Art.42, Art.43
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ACT: S.79(c)
INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT STANDING ORDERS ACT: S.10, S.13(b), S.2(g), S.4, S.5, S.6, S.7
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.309, Art.42, Art.43
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ACT: S.79(c)
INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT STANDING ORDERS ACT: S.10, S.13(b), S.2(g), S.4, S.5, S.6, S.7
Headnote
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 – Sections 7, 10 and 13B – Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 – Rule 3 – Disciplinary proceedings – Initiation of – Protection of 1946 Act, cannot be denied to a workman merely for reason that employer grants him other services benefits such as pension, gratuity etc. under CCA Rules – An appointment order cannot lay down terms of service which are against what is provided in Standing Orders, as they are binding on employer – A standing order is no ordinary order – It has a statutory mandate – Standing orders are a set of Rules which have to be strictly followed and cannot be ignored, modified or changed, except in accordance with law – CCA Rules, 1965 do not comprehensively cover service conditions of a workman as a standing order does – CCA Rules, 1965 are general Rules whereas Standing Orders are Special Rules and Standing Orders would override CCA Rules, 1965 – Any modification sought to be made to service conditions of respondent can only be done as per procedure which is given under Section 10 of Standing Orders Act, 1946 – Service conditions of respondents will be governed by ‘Standing Orders’ as far as disciplinary proceedings are concerned – Order passed by High Court upheld. (Paras 8, 9, 11, 13, 17, 20 and 21)
Facts of the case:
Short question for consideration is whether disciplinary proceedings against respondent (who is admittedly a workman), could be initiated under CCA Rules 1965 or it could be done only under Standing Orders under Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.
Findings of Court:
NFC, Hyderabad has failed to place on record any modification made under Section 10 of 1946 Act to show that Standing Orders certified for NFC-Hyderabad would not be applicable to respondent.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- labour law
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. K. M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anand Padmanabhan R., Adv. Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. K. M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anand Padmanabhan R., Adv. Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Whether disciplinary proceedings are governed by general service rules specified in appointment orders or by certified standing orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. (Para 4 , 6 , 16 )
3. Standing orders are special rules for workmen that override general service rules unless specifically excluded by government notification or modified through statutory procedure. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
4. Certified standing orders as special laws prevail over general service rules unless a notification under Section 13B of the 1946 Act is issued. (Para 17 , 19 )
5. Appeals dismissed and the order quashing disciplinary proceedings initiated under general service rules is upheld. (Para 21 )
6. Do certified standing orders prevail over general service rules in disciplinary proceedings for workmen?
Yes. Standing orders are special rules specifically designed for workmen in industrial establishments and therefore override general service rules, such as the CCA Rules, which apply to all government servants. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 17 , 19 )
7. When does Section 13B of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, exclude the application of the Act?
Section 13B excludes the Act's application to workmen governed by specific rules, such as the CCA Rules, provided the appropriate government issues a specific notification in the Official Gazette. (Para 16 , 17 )
8. Can an appointment order override the terms of certified standing orders?
No. An appointment order cannot lay down terms of service that contravene certified standing orders, as the latter constitute a statutory contract of service binding on the employer. (Para 9 )
9. How can certified standing orders be modified or withdrawn?
Standing orders can only be modified or withdrawn by following the procedure prescribed under Section 10 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. (Para 10 , 11 , 18 , 20 )
JUDGMENT :
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
1. These are the two appeals filed by the Union of India; Appeal No. 1320/2010, is against the order dated 14.10.2008 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 9541 of 2008 and Appeal No. 1323/2010 is against the order dated 22.01.2009, of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad passed in Writ Petition No. 494/2009. The issue in both the Civil Appeals raised is identical, but for the sake of convenience, for facts we would be only referring to Civil Appeal No. 1320 of 2010.
2. The High Court in the impugned order dated 14.10.2008 has allowed the Writ Petition of the respondent by setting aside the order (dated 18.03.2008), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘CAT’) which upheld the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings by the Nuclear Fuel Complex-Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘NFC’ or ‘Department’), against the respondent under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short ‘CCA Rules 1965’). The short question which was there before the High Court and which is now before us, is whether the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent (who is admittedly a workman), could be initiated under the CCA Rules 1965 or it could be done only under the Standing Orders certified for the NFC-Hyderabad on 27.08.1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Standing Orders”) under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1946 Act’).
3. NFC was set up in the 1970s, as a constituent unit of the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India. The respondent was appointed as a ‘helper’ w.e.f. 05.05.2001 in NFC. Helper is the class IV post and it seems that the eligibility requirement for the post was a Class VI certificate which the respondent had submitted in order to get the appointment. On 23.04.2003 he received a memorandum which said that he had given a false declaration that he had passed Class VI as the transfer certificate of Class VI submitted by him was found to be fake for which a disciplinary action was to be initiated against him under CCA Rules 1965. In response, the respondent denied the allegations and asserted that his certificate is genuine and further contended that the disciplinary proceedings, if any, would be governed by the Standing Orders and not under the CCA Rules 1965, and ultimately, he filed an OA before the CAT, Hyderabad, with a prayer to set aside the proceedings against him, inter-alia, on the grounds that the disciplinary proceedings against him can only be initiated under the “Standing Orders” and not under the CCA Rules. The CAT, dismissed his O.A. vide its order dated 18.03.2008. The CAT relied on his appointment order, as well as the circular dated 12.05.2005 issued by the Department to clarify that their employees were governed by the CCA Rules and not Standing Orders. This order of CAT, was challenged by the respondent in a writ petition before the High Court which was allowed and the order of the CAT was set aside and the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent were quashed.
4. The case of the respondent is that he being a workman will be covered by the Standing Orders which contain provisions to deal with matters, inter-alia, of disciplinary proceedings, and therefore the proceedings initiated against him under the CCA Rules, 1965 are without jurisdiction. On the other hand, the appellants before this Court would argue that the respondent-workman is governed by the CCA Rules 1965, being an employee of NFC, Hyderabad. One of the terms and conditions stated in his appointment order was that he would be governed under the CCA Rules, even for disciplinary proceedings. Further, it is under the CCA Rules where a large number of benefits are liable to be given to the employees of the Department. On the date, an employee reaches the age of superannuation,
