Standing Order 31 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Rourkela Steel Plant was valid and in conformity with the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, as it fell within the ambit of item 8 of the Schedule, which dealt with termination of employment.

Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDING ORDERS) ACT, 1946 - STANDING ORDER 31 - VALIDITY - TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT - SECURITY RISK - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 33(2)(B) - APPROVAL OF DISMISSAL - SCOPE OF INQUIRY.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an employee of Hindustan Steel Limited, Rourkela, was dismissed from service by the General Manager under Standing Order 31 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Rourkela Steel Plant on the ground that his continuance in employment was not expedient as it was against the interest of security for the Rourkela Steel Plant. The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal and the order of the Industrial Tribunal approving the dismissal on various grounds, including the validity of Standing Order 31 and the scope of inquiry under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that Standing Order 31 was valid and in conformity with the Schedule to the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, as it fell within the ambit of item 8 of the Schedule, which dealt with termination of employment. The Court further held that the inquiry conducted by the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act was not intended to be a full-fledged adjudication of the dispute, but rather to ensure that the employer had made out a prima facie case for dismissal and that there was no mala fide, unfair labour practice, intimidation, or victimisation involved.
Issues: 1. Whether Standing Order 31 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Rourkela Steel Plant was valid and in conformity with the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946? 2. Whether the inquiry conducted by the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was intended to be a full-fledged adjudication of the dispute?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Standing Order 31 was valid and in conformity with the Schedule to the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, as it fell within the ambit of item 8 of the Schedule, which dealt with termination of employment. The Court noted that item 8 was designed to meet situations where termination of employment of a workman was secured otherwise than by dismissal for misconduct and that the elaborate procedure prescribed for dismissal for misconduct was not required in such cases. 2. The inquiry conducted by the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act was not intended to be a full-fledged adjudication of the dispute, but rather to ensure that the employer had made out a prima facie case for dismissal and that there was no mala fide, unfair labour practice, intimidation, or victimisation involved. The Court held that the Tribunal had properly considered the material before it and had not acted arbitrarily or unreasonably in approving the order of dismissal.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, holding that there was no merit in the petitioner's arguments and that the orders of dismissal and approval of dismissal were valid.

JUDGMENT :

B.K. Patra, Acting C.J.

1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order Annexure 1 dismissing the petitioner, an employee of the Hindustan Steel Limited, Rourkela from service and Annexure 2, the order passed by the presiding officer of the Industrial' Tribunal u/s 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV of 1947) hereinafter referred to as the I.D. Act) approving such dismissal. The petitioner was a charge-man grade I under the Hindustan Steel. Limited, Rourkela and was workingin the Pipe Plant. On 19-11-1968, the order Annexure 1 was passed by the General Manager. Annexure 1 so far as material is quoted below.

Hindustan Steel Limited, Rourkela, (Orissa)

* * *

Dismissal Order

* * *

Whereas the General Manager is personally satisfied that the continuance in employment of Mohammad Yasin, token No. 1007 charge-man, Pipe Plant is not expedient as it is against the interest of security for the Rourkela Steel Plant and has recorded in writing that for these reasons, Mohammed Yasin be dismissed from service under powers vested in him by order 31 of the Standing Orders, you, Mohammad Yasin, are accordingly, here by dismissed from service with immediate effect.

As you happen to be a concerned workman in Industrial Disputes Case No. I.D. 48 of 1967, one month's wages in accordance with Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act is being paid to you along with this order.

* * *

Sub-Assistant General Supdt. (Mills).

As by the time this order of dismissal was passed, there was pending before the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication a dispute where the petitioner was a party, opposite party No. 2 made an application before the Tribunal for approving the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner. This was registered as Industrial Ditputes Case No. 131 of 1968. After notice to the petitioner and hearing the parties, the Tribunal passed on 19-6-70 the order Annexure 2 approving the order of dismissal. Immediately after the order of dismissal was passed and during the pendency of the I.D. Case No. 131 of 1963 before the Tribunal, the petitioner came up to this Court with a writ application (O.J.C. 1606 of 1968- disposed of on 27-7-71) challenging the order of dismissal. A Bench of this Court dismissed it on the ground that no writ is maintainable against a non-statutory company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Some time after the order Annexure 2 was passed, the present application was filed for quashing Annexure 2 on the ground mentioned below,

(1) The order is illegal being based on no legal evidence and also due to the fact that no adequate opportunity had been given to the petitioner to defend himself in the said proceeding.

(2) Standing Order 31 is ultra vires of Article 19 of the Constitution as it gives un-briddled power to an employer to take away the service of a workman merely on the ground of security which is too vague.

(3) Standing Order 31 is ultra vires and repugnant to the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and the Rules framed thereunder.

(4) The satisfaction of the General Manager that continuance of the petitioner's employment is a security risk is based on inadequate and vague material.

(5) If the order of dismissal is not to be treated as one for misconduct, then the same would amount to an order of retrenchment coming within the purview of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as the conditions precedent to retrenchment have not been fulfilled the order is violative of Section 25F of the I.D. Act.

(6) The inquiry conducted by the Tribunal was not in terms of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and as such the order Annexure 2 is unjustified.

2. A counter-affidavit on behalf of opposite party No. 2 Hindustan Steel Limited was filed by its Administrative Officer wherein it is stated inter alia that the Pipe Plant Unit where the petitioner was working is a v

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1974 Supreme(Ori) 219

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSAB.K. Patra, S. Acharya, JJ.MD. YASIN - APPELLANTVersusPRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER - RESPONDENTDecided On : 11-06-1974

Standing Order 31 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Rourkela Steel Plant was valid and in conformity with the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, as it fell within the ambit of item 8 of the Schedule, which dealt with termination of employment.

Cases Referred (3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
B.K. Patra, S. Acharya, JJ.
MD. YASIN - APPELLANT
Versus
PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER - RESPONDENT
Decided On : 11-06-1974