SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Del) 2370

High Court Of Delhi
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA WORKERS UNION - Appellant
Versus
G.R.MAJHI - Respondents
W. P. (C) 803 Of 2000
Decided On : 12/20/2006

Advocates Appeared:
AJIT PUDDSSERY, BHARAT SANGAL, INDIRA JAISINGH, R.R.KUMAR, SAMYADIP CHATTERJI, V.Pattanaik

Certified standing orders are crucial for defining the terms and conditions of service and curbing arbitrariness in management actions.

Headnote:

certified standing orders - Applicability to FCI employees - Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act 1946, Section 2(e) - Summary: The court discussed the applicability of certified standing orders to the employees working in Food Corporation of India (FCI) and the objections raised by the union. The court upheld the certified standing orders and dismissed the petition, emphasizing the importance of certified standing orders in defining the terms and conditions of service and curbing arbitrariness in management actions.

Fact of the Case:

The union of FCI workers challenged the applicability of certified standing orders to FCI employees, raising objections to specific clauses of the certified standing orders.

Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the certified standing orders, emphasizing the importance of certified standing orders in defining the terms and conditions of service and curbing arbitrariness in management actions.

Issues: Applicability of certified standing orders to FCI employees, objections to specific clauses of the certified standing orders.

Ratio Decidendi: Certified standing orders are essential for defining the terms and conditions of service and curbing arbitrariness in management actions.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the certified standing orders for FCI employees.

( 1 ) THE challenge in this writ petition is to the applicability of certified standing orders to the employees working in Food Corporation of India (for short FCI) and this challenge has been made by the union of the workers.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY the facts are that the Labour Commissioner issued certified standing orders for the industrial establishment of FCI on 27. 2. 1996. In the back ground of this certification there was agitation of the FCI workers union who had submitted a charter of demands and also given a notice for trade union dharna at FCI office and godowns from 25. 3. 92 in respect of their demands. FCI management held several discussions with the trade unions on the charter of demands. However, on 25. 3. 1992 union organized dharna at headquater building in respect of their demands. Union was invited for discussion on various dates and as a result of discussion an agreement was arrived at with them. It was mutually agreed in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that the agreement as arrived at shall be implemented within a month and amendments suggested by the union to the draft standing orders shall also be incorporated and within a month the parties shall sent a consent letter to Regional Labour Commissioner (Certification) for certification of the agreed standing orders.

( 3 ) IN pursuance of this MOU, FCI made necessary changes in the draft standing orders and these draft standing orders were sent for certification to the office of certifying officer who certified the standing orders. However, petitioner"s union felt aggrieved by the certified standing orders and raised objections to some of the clauses of the certified standing orders. It preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority in respect of standing orders. In the appeal, the appellate took the stand that Industrial Employment standing Orders Act, 1946 was not applicable to the employees working in FCI godowns since FCI godowns were not industrial establishment within the definition of Section 2 (e) of the standing orders. The petitioner"s union also agitated against certain provisions of standing orders. The Appellate Authority with certain further modifications approved the certified standing orders vide its order dated 31. 8. 1999. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Appellate Authority in approving the certified standing orders on the ground that Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act 1946 was not applicable to the persons working in FCI godowns and the other objections is in respect of some clauses of the certified standing orders. The clauses of which legality are challenged are as under:- (a) Clause 2. 5- Disciplinary Authority. (b) Clause 13 (3) (b) and (j)- Grant of leave. (c) Clause 14- Loss of lien on unauthorised absence. I shall first deal with the legality of clause 2. 5. Clause 25 is as under:-"disciplinary Authority"shall be the District Manager as an appointing authority or an authority not lower than the appointing authority as may be specified by a general or special order of the Managing Director of the corporation in this behalf. "

( 4 ) THE objection against this clause is that appointing authority has not been defined in certified standing orders, therefore, this clause was very vague and imprecise. The certifying officer left power to notify the appointing authority with the Managing Director. This was unspecified power and it would be appropriate that only Senior Regional Manager or Regional Manager be declared as appointing authority.

( 5 ) I consider this objection of the petitioner is unfounded. Appointing authority is not required to be defined. An appointing authority is that officer who has power to appoint employees. This clause provides that disciplinary authority shall be either District Manager as an appointing authority or authority not lower than the appointing authority. There is no vagueness in the clause. The appointing authority of each employee shall be a defined and id















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top