Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and Raj Kishore Prasad JJ.
Patna Electric Supply Workers Union
Versus
A.Hassan
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 366 of 1956 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 22, 1957
INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDING ORDERS) ACT, 1946 - SECTION 6, 10 - STANDING ORDERS - MODIFICATION - APPELLATE AUTHORITY - JURISDICTION - INHERENT POWERS - CORRECTION OF MISTAKES - WRIT OF CERTIORARI - SCOPE AND AMBIT OF JURISDICTION - TRIBUNAL OF SPECIAL JURISDICTION - POWERS CIRCUMSCRIBED BY STATUTE - ACTING WITHIN POWERS - ORDERS NOT CHALLENGABLE - EXCESS OR CONTRAVENTION OF POWERS - ULTRA VIRES AND OF NO LEGAL EFFECT - APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE ACT - LIMITED JURISDICTION - CONFINED TO EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS AND POWERS CONFERRED - SUBSTITUTION OF WORD "ALONE" FOR "ALONG" - MODIFICATION OF STANDING ORDERS - CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 10 - IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT JURISDICTION - QUASHED BY WRIT OF CERTIORARI.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a union representing workers, challenged the order of the Appellate Authority under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, which corrected a mistake in a certified Standing Order. The mistake was the use of the word "along" instead of "alone" in a provision dealing with disciplinary action for misconduct. The petitioner contended that the Appellate Authority had no power to make such a correction, as the Act did not provide for it.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Appellate Authority did not have the power to correct the mistake in the Standing Order, as the Act did not provide for such a correction. The court found that the Appellate Authority's order was without jurisdiction and quashed it by issuing a writ of certiorari.
Issues: 1. Whether the Appellate Authority had the power to correct the mistake in the Standing Order. 2. Whether the Appellate Authority's order was without jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, and found that the Act did not provide for the Appellate Authority to correct mistakes in certified Standing Orders. 2. The court held that the Appellate Authority, being a tribunal of special jurisdiction, must act within the powers conferred on it by the statute that created it. 3. The court found that the Appellate Authority's order was in excess of its powers and, therefore, ultra vires and of no legal effect.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, made the rule absolute, and issued a writ of certiorari quashing the Appellate Authority's order.
Raj Kishore Prasad, J.
1. This application, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been presented by the petitioner Patna Electric Supply Workers Union for an appropriate writ to call up and quash the order dated the 20th March, 1956, which is Annexure C to its affidavit, of the Opposite Party 1, who is the Appellate Authority under Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (Act XX of 1946), which will hereafter be referred to as "the Act."
2. On the above application, a rule was issued by this Court against the opposite party to show cause why the just mentioned order of Opposite party 1, purported to have been passed obviously in exercise of his inherent powers, as no section of the Act is mentioned therein, should not be quashed. Cause has been shown against this rule by Mr. Ray Paras Nath, Government Pleader, on behalf of Opposite Party 1, and by Mr. K.D. Chatterji, on behalf of Opposite Party 2. The Patna Electric Supply Company Ltd., Opposite Party 2, has also filed a counter affidavit in reply to the affidavit of the petitioner, and, along with, it has filed also a copy of the order dated the 23rd February, 1956, passed by Opposite Party 1 under S. 6 (1) of the Act, which is Annexure B to its counter affidavit.
3. The petitioners case is that Opposite Party 2 submitted to the Certifying Officer under the Act, a draft of the existing Standing Orders for modification under Sec.10 (2) of the Act. The Certifying Officer, acting under Sec. 5 of the Act, certified the aforesaid draft on the 24th January, 1955, and as required by sec. 5 (3) of the Act, the Certifying Officer sent copies of the Certified Standing Orders to the parties concerned.
4. Against the above order of the Certifying Officer, the petitioners as well as opposite party 2 appealed to the Appellate Authority under Sec. 6 (1) of the Act. The Appellate Authority opposite party 1, decided the appeal on the 23rd February, 1956, and as required by Sec. 6 (2) sent copies of the Standing Orders as certified by him and authenticated in the prescribed manner to the parties concerned. On the 28th February, 1956 opposite party 2 made an application to opposite party 1 to modify the Certified Standing Order No. 8 and Standing Order No. 17 (b) (i) on the ground of mistakes. In the present case, we are concerned with the Certified Standing Order No, 17 (b) (i) which was sought to be modified on the ground that the word "along" appearing therein was a mistake for the word "alone" and, therefore, the mistake should be rectified. Opposite party 1 after hearing the parties on 20-3-1956 allowed the application of opposite party 2. He held that the word "along" was obviously a mistake for the word alone" and, therefore, the word "along" should be substituted by the word "alone" and, accordingly, corrected the above error. Against this order, the petitioner has moved this Court.
5. Mr. Ranen Roy in support of the rule, attacked, the validity of the order of opposite party 1, which is Annexure "C" to the petitioners affidavit, on the ground that, apart from Sec.10, there is no provision in the Act empowering the Appellate Authority after, it has certified the Standing Orders under Section 6 (1) of the Act to correct even such a mistake.
6. In order to determine the question presented by the petitioner for determination of this Court, it is necessary to know the circumstances in which the application on 28-2-1956 was made by opposite party 2, and the impugned order was passed by opposite party L on 20-3-1956.
7. In Appendix A to The Bihar Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1947, Model Standing Orders are given as required by R. 5 of the Rules. Model Standing Order No. 14 deals with disciplinary action for misconduct. Model Standing Order No. 14 (3) (a) is as below:
"(3) The following acts and omissions shall be treated as misconduct: (a) Wilful insubordination or disobedience, whether "alone" or in combination with others, to any lawful and r
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
