JUDGMENT :

1. Heard counsels for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the award dated 23.06.2004 pronounced on 14.09.2004 in Reference Case No. 04 of 1993 by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi, whereby the reference has been answered in favour of the workman.

3. From argument and pleading, it appears that Union has raised Industrial Dispute claiming that the service condition of workman has been changed by the employer in contravention of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. All workman had been appointed before year 1975. After giving promotion, their service condition had been changed in the year 1980 onwards. By this change, their leave and other benefits had been changed to the disadvantage of the workman. On failure of conciliation, the matter has been referred vide Reference Order No. 04 of 1993. The terms of reference is as follows:-

“Whether to reduce the benefit of the workers in Annexure-I by the Management of Bokaro Steel Plant ignoring the provisions of company’s conduct Rules and Disciplines and Appeal Rules in the Company’s Standing Orders regarding leave and other benefits? If not, workers are entitled for what relief?”

4. Considering the evidence led by the parties such as service rule, standing order, pay slips, as well as the oral evidence, the finding has been recorded that the leave rules has been changed and this has caused disadvantage to the workman in violation of section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On strength of such finding, reference has been answered in favour of the workmen.

5. Counsel for the petitioner-employer has argued that Section 9A does not prohibit change of service condition rather it regulates and can be changed by giving notice. As per mandate of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, service condition can be changed.

6. Further, it has been argued that the Standing Order has to be prepared as per the Industrial Employment (Standing Order/Orders) Act, 1946. The procedure has been prescribed under Section 3 onwards. The procedure itself suggests participation of Union and workmen is mandatory for preparation of Standing Order. Workmen as well as Union has been permitted to file objection. Even if after formulation of Standing Order, there is provision of appeal under Section 7 of Industrial Employment (Standing Order/Orders) Act, 1956.

7. Further, provision has been made under Section 10 for modification and Union and representative body has been permitted to raise objection to approach the concerned authority for modification. Thus, the procedure prescribed in the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1956 contemplates the participation of the Union which satisfies the requirement of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thus, the reason assigned by the Tribunal regarding non-compliance of mandatory requirement of notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable and accordingly, prayer has been made for quashing of the impugned Award.

8. Per contra, counsel for the Union/Respondent has argued that it is trite that Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 will prevail over other legislation. Further relying upon Clause 44 of the Standing Order, the argument has been advanced that service rule applicable prior to implementation of the Standing Order has been saved. Further, it has been argued that placing workmen under the umbrella of the Standing Order by specific order and selectively is per se discriminative and being disadvantageous to the workman, is hit by Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, because no notice has been given for change of service condition as contemplated under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

9. It is admitted position that concerned workmen were employed prior to 1975. They were governed by the service rules which has been adopted by the management. Service rule applicable to the Central Government Employee has been adopted by the m