Consultation with workmen prior to certifying standing orders is necessary; lack of individual representation does not invalidate group consent.

JUDGMENT :

Harsimran Singh Sethi J. 

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 20.09.2022 (Annexure P-17) passed by the Appellate Authority envisaged under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 by which the certified standing order dated 28.01.2021 (Annexure P-7) which was framed by the petitioner-Company has been set-aside on the ground that the same has been framed without giving any opportunity to the workmen as there was nothing on record to show that the representative who had consented to the Certifying Authority qua the standing order were actually the representative of the Trade Union, especially when the said standing order is causing prejudice to the workmen concerned.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Company argues that the impugned order which has been passed by the Appellate Authority is incorrect and without noticing the actual fact. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Company argues that the Certifying Officer-cum-Addl. Labour Commissioner, Punjab, SAS Nagar, who is the Competent Authority to certify a standing order, passed an order on 28.01.2021, wherein, it has been mentioned that the elective representative of the workmen who appeared before the said authority in person, confirmed the contents of the letters which were written by the workmen through their elective representative, wherein it had been stated that they have no objection if the draft standing orders are certified as, the workmen have not objected to the same.

3. Keeping in view the said factum, the standing order was confirmed by the authority concerned but against the order dated 28.01.2021, an appeal was preferred by one Manoj Kumar being the General Secretary of the respondent-workmen-Union on 02.09.2021.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while deciding upon the said appeal, in paragraph 12 of the impugned Award, it has been mentioned that the Union was purported to have been represented by Mahavir Singh (Operator), Roshan Singh (Di-fitter) and Shri Chand (Inspector), whereas, nothing has come on record to show as to whether these persons who gave consent to the standing order, were the representative of the workmen or not and, therefore, the Certifying Authority while certifying the standing order, could not establish that whether, the representative of the workmen, who appeared before the Authority, were entitled to give the statement accepting the standing order or not and reliance placed upon the affidavit submitted by the so called representative is incorrect and as such the order passed by the Certifying Authority certifying the standing order was set-aside and the certification given to the standing order was quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing the said order, the Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the fact that the appeal was filed by Manoj Kumar against the order dated 28.01.2021 passed by the Certifying Authority and said Manoj Kumar himself had given an affidavit accepting that the draft standing order was given to them for their comments and they accept the same. Learned counsel further submits that the said affidavit of Manoj Kumar has been appended as Annexure P-4 which fact has gone un-rebutted and, therefore, once even the appellant, who had approached the Appellate Authority against the order of the Certifying Officer dated 28.01.2021, himself had approved the draft standing order, question of non-consultation with the representative of the workmen for approval of the same, which has been taken as a ground to quash the same, is contrary to the facts on record and, therefore, the impugned order dated 20.09.2022 (Annexure P-17) passed by the Appellate Authority is liable to be set-asi