IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited - Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Others - Respondent
Writ C No.27633 of 2021
Decided on : 30-09-2024
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
1. Heard Mr. Diptiman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Annapurna Singh Chandel, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner- Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, a Central Government undertaking, incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, having its registered office at Bangalore, is engaged in the manufacturing, repairing and overhauling of sophisticated aircraft and other defence equipment in India. The present writ petition relates to the Transport, Aircraft Division, H.A.L., Kanpur Division which deals with manufacturing/maintaining/overhauling/repairing of transport aircraft used by defence forces of the nation. The petitioner has its certified standing orders which are certified by Certifying Officer as provided under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and each division has a separate standing order which is approved by the competent authority/Certifying Officer. On 25.4.2016, the petitioner has submitted a draft for modification/amendment of certified standing orders before respondent no.3 under the provisions of Section 10 of the Act. The petitioner filed an application on 13.6.2018 before respondent no.3, stating that certified standing orders at H.A.L., Barrackpore Division has been amended and new clause of pre-mature retirement of workman has been incorporated. On 25.4.2019, another application was filed before respondent no.3 on behalf of the petitioner, stating that clause of pre-mature retirement of the workman has been approved and incorporated in Lucknow as well as in Hyderabad Division of H.A.L. on 5.3.2019 and 6.3.2019 respectively. Another application was filed on behalf of the petitioner on 8.7.2019 before respondent no.3, requesting that proposed incorporation/modification of certified standing orders of H.A.L., Kanpur may also be approved. Respondent no.3 vide order dated 30.9.2020 rejected the proposed amendment/modification of certified standing orders. The petitioner challenged the order dated 30.9.2020 by way of appeal under Section 6 of the Act before respondent no.2 which has been dismissed under the impugned order dated 20.7.2021 on the ground that Mr. Jaspal Singh, Senior Manager (HR), H.A.L. is not competent to file the appeal. Hence, the instant writ petition for the following relief:-
“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 20.7.2021 passed by respondent no.2 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition)
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing respondent no.2 to decide the appeal of the petitioner dated 19.10.2020 (Annexure no. 10 to the writ petition) afresh, through a reasoned and speaking order in respect of the proposed amendment/modification of certified standing orders of the petitioners.”
3. This Court vide order dated 25.10.2021 issued notice to respondent nos. 4 & 5. In pursuance of the order dated 25.10.2021, steps have been taken on behalf of the petitioner but nobody has put in appearance on their behalf although service is sufficient upon respondent nos. 4 & 5 according to office report dated 23.5.2024. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 who are represented by the office of the Asst. Solicitor General of India.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders have been passed in illegal and arbitrary manner. He further submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on misconceived grounds that there was no proper power of attorney executed by the Factory Manager, although Senior Manager (HR) was duly competent and was delegated by the General Manager with the authority to represent H.A.L. before the appellate authority but the appeal has been dismissed on misconceived grounds. He further submitted that Nasik, Barrackpore, Luckonw and Cobra Division of H.A.L. have already incorporat
AI
The dismissal of an appeal based on the alleged lack of authority of the representative was unjustified, necessitating a decision on the merits of the proposed amendment to the standing orders.
The court upheld the termination of a permanent workman for unauthorized absence under Standing Orders, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance and the impact of laches in filing the writ....
Nothing contained in Standing Orders can operate in derogation or to prejudice of provisions as provided in contract of service.
Consultation with workmen prior to certifying standing orders is necessary; lack of individual representation does not invalidate group consent.
Chapter IVA contained Section 41A to 41H of the Factories Act, 1948 deals with ‘Provisions relating to Hazardous Process’, these provisions deal with the manner of setting up of a factory dealing wit....
The certifying authority is not a necessary party in an appeal concerning Industrial Employment Standing Orders, as its presence can be secured through summons if required.
Age of Retirement – Clause 17(7)(iii) of Standing Orders of ITI Limited only enables company to continue any employee in service till he or she attains age of 60 years subject to medical fitness at e....
A suspension order must be accompanied by a charge sheet explaining the reasons for suspension.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.