Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sanjay Dwivedi, J.
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Another v. The Chief Labour Commissioner (C) & Another
Writ Petition No. 17086 of 2022 (Jabalpur); Decided on 12.6.2023
(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 -- S. 1 -- maintainability of writ petition -- territorial jurisdiction -- Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Delhi directed petitioner-company to amend certified Standing Orders -- headquarter of petitioner-company is at Bilaspur – it is a subsidiary company of Coal India Limited and has various mines in States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh -- Act is applicable to company -- held -- Standing Order which is directed to be amended by CLC is also applicable to employees working in mines situated within State of Madhya Pradesh -- writ petition can be entertained by this Court. (2014) 9 SCC 329 followed. (2022) 3 SCC 133 discussed. [Paras 9 & 10]
(2) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 -- S. 6 -- maintainability of writ petition -- availability of alternative remedy -- Chief Labour Commissioner directed petitioner-company to amend certified Standing Orders -- held -- impugned order not passed under sub-section (2) of S. 5 -- statutory remedy of appeal not applicable. 2013 SCC Online MP 6875 Writ Petition No. 16517 of 2016 decided on 21.7.2017 referredto. [Para 11]
(3) Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 -- S. 10 -- jurisdiction of Chief Labour Commissioner -- CLC directed petitioner-company to amend certified Standing Orders -- Standing Order finally certified -- can be modified before expiry of six months from date of its final certification, that too by agreement between employer and workmen -- cannot be modified thereafter -- merely because representation was filed before CLC which remained undecided and direction was sought from Delhi High Court for CLC to decide representation, does not mean that CLC acquired jurisdiction to direct employer to modify Standing Order which was already certified in 1991 -- order passed by CLC is without jurisdiction. [Para 15]
(4) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- delay -- order passed by authority/Court without jurisdiction -- can be assailed at any time. (2004) 8 SCC 706 and AIR 2008 SC 1315 followed. (2019) 15 SCC 633 referred to. [Para 16]
¼1½ Òkjr dk lafoèkku & vuqPNsn 226 & v©|¨fxd fu;¨tu ¼LFkk;h vkns'k½ vfèkfu;e] 1946 & èkkjk 1 & fjV ;kfpdk pyus ;¨X; g¨uk & {ks=h; vfèkdkfjrk & eq[; Jek;qDr ¼d¢Uæh;½ fnYyh us ;kph&dEiuh d¨ çekf.kr LFkk;h vkns'k la'k¨fèkr djus dk funs'k fn;k & ;kph&dEiuh dk eq[;ky; fcykliqj esa gS & og d¨y bafM;k fyfeVsM dh leuq"kaxh daiuh gS rFkk eè; çns'k v©j NÙkhlxढ+ jkT;¨a esa mldh vusd [kkusa gSa & daiuh d¨ vfèkfu;e ykxw g¨rk gS & vfÒfuèkkZfjr & eq[; Jek;qDr }kjk ftl LFkk;h vkns'k d¨ la'k¨fèkr djus dk funs'k fn;k x;k gS] og eè; çns'k jkT; d¢ Òhrj fLFkr [kku¨a esa dk;Zjr deZpkfj;¨a d¨ Òh ykxw g¨rk gS & bl U;k;ky; }kjk fjV ;kfpdk xzg.k dh tk ldrh gSA ¼2014½ 9 ,l lh lh 329 vuqlfjrA ¼2022½ 3 ,l lh lh 133 foosfprA ¼iSjk 9 ,oa 10½
¼2½ Òkjr dk lafoèkku & vuqPNsn 226 & v©|¨fxd fu;¨tu ¼LFkk;h vkns'k½ vfèkfu;e] 1946 & èkkjk 6 & fjV ;fpdk pyus ;¨X; g¨uk & vkuqdfYid mipkj dh miyCèkrk & eq[; Jek;qDr us ;kph&dEiuh d¨ çekf.kr LFkk;h vkns'k la'k¨fèkr djus dk funs'k fn;k & vfÒfuèkkZfjr & vkf{kIr vkns'k èkkjk 5 dh mièkkjk ¼2½ d¢ vèkhu ikfjr ugha & vihy dk dkuwuh mipkj ykxw ugha g¨rkA 2013 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu ,e ih 6875 rFkk fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 16517 lu~ 2016 fu.kÊr fnukad 21-7-2017 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 11½
¼3½ v©|¨fxd fu;¨tu ¼LFkk;h vkns'k½ vfèkfu;e] 1946 & èkkjk 10 & eq[; Jek;qDr dh vfèkdkfjrk & eq[; Jek;qDr us ;kph&dEiuh d¨ çekf.kr LFkk;h vkns'k la'k¨fèkr djus dk funs'k fn;k & LFkk;h vkns'k vafre :i ls çekf.kr & mls vafre :i ls çekf.kr fd, tkus d¢ fnukad ls Ng ekl dk volku g¨us d¢ iwoZ mikarfjr fd;k tk ldrk gS] og Òh fu;¨td v©j deZdkj¨a d¢ eè; djkj }kjk & rnqijkar mikarfjr ugÈ fd;k tk ldrk & ek= blfy, fd eq[; Jek;qDr d¢ le{k vH;kosnu çLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk] ftls fofuf'pr ugha fd;k tk jgk Fkk rFkk fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; ls eq[; Jek;qDr }kjk ml vH;kosnu dk fofuf'p; fd, tkus d¢ funs'k dh ÃIlk dh xà Fkh] ;g vfÒçsr ugha fd eq[; Jek;qDr d¨ og LFkk;h vkns'k mikarfjr djus d¢ fy, fu;¨td d¨ funs'k nsus dh vfèkdkfjrk vftZr g¨ xà t¨ igys gh lu~ 1991 esa çekf.kr g¨ pqdk Fkk & eq[; Jek;qDr }kjk ikfjr vkns'k vfèkdkfjrkjfgr gSA ¼iSjk 15½
¼4½ Òkjr dk lafoèkku & vuqPNsn 226 & foyac & çkfèkdkjh@U;k;ky; }kjk fcuk vfèkdkfjrk d¢ ikfjr vkns'k & fdlh Òh le; vkf{kIr fd;k tk ldrk gS ¼2004½ 8 ,l lh lh 706 rFkk , vkb vkj 2008 ,l lh 1315 vuqlfjrA ¼2019½ 15 ,l lh lh 633 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 16½
ORDER
1. The instant petition is pending since 2022. The pleadings are complete and with the concurrence of learned counsel for the parties, who are ready to argue it finally, the petition is heard finally.
2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are questioning the validity and correctness of the order dated 3.5.2017 (Annexure-P/1) and order dated 19.5.2022 (Annexure-P/2).
3. The facts in compendium are that the petitioner – South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) is one of the subsidiary companies of the Coal India Limited which is under the administrative control of Ministry of Coal, Government of India. The Company has various mines in the State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Chhattisgarh.
The provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (for brevity “Act, 1946”) is applicable to the petitioner- company. The Standing Orders were made so as to govern the service conditions of the Wage Board Employees i.e. non-executive staff or workmen of SECL. The Standing Orders were certified by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Bombay way back on 8.7.1991.
The certified Standing Orders do not contain any provision showing the disciplinary authority for taking disciplinary action against the Wage Board Employees. However, Clause 2.3 of the certified Standing Orders provides “competent authority” means an officer specially nominated by the Chairman/Managing Director concerned by an order in writing for the purpose of these standing orders. Such orders shall be put on Notice Board and copies sent to the concerned registered trade unions. In terms of the clause containing “Competent Authority’ office order was issued by the-then Chairman-cum-Managing Director, SECL on 31.3.2008 and on 1.4.2008 (Annexure-P/5) mentioning various authorities to exercise the power of ‘Competent Authority for all the provisions of the certified Standing Orders of SECL.
Appointment letters of non-executive cadre i.e. Wage Board Employees is issued either by Area General Manager or Area Personnel Manager after the approval of Area General Manager and for those who are employed at Headquarters Bilaspur by General Manager (P&A).
Respondent No.2, who was employee of SECL filed an application on 16.01.2015 (Annexure-P/16) before the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Delhi (for short “CLC”) with regard to delegation of power given to various officers of SECL for taking action against the Wage Board Employees of company. The said claim of respondent No.2 was based upon an information given under the Right to Information Act saying that the Director (P) is the appointing authority and then the CLC started the conciliation process in which the officers of the petitioner-company participated and submitted a reply. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 3.5.2016, the CLC directed the petitioner-company to amend the certified Standing Orders with regard to delegation of power. Subsequently, after examining the order dated 3.5.2016, the petitioner-company noticed certain discrepancies based on which the incorrect interpretation was done by the CLC.
Thereafter, the petitioner-company preferred a review application before the CLC on 25.2.2020 which was dismissed vide order dated 19.5.2022. Hence this petition.
4. The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that the authority failed to see that the Area General Manager was the appointing authority and General Manager (P&A) for those employed at SECL headquarters, but not the Director (Personnel) as held by the CLC. The Standing Order very clear describes the ‘competent authority’ and as per the said clause the Chairman-cum-Managing Director has legally nominated the officers to take appropriate action in the disciplinary matters. As per the petitioners, there is no material available on record to indicate that the Director (Personnel) is the appointing authority. According to the petitioners, the CLC ought to have corrected his order.
SupremeToday
(1) Protection of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 cannot be denied to a workman merely for reason that employer grants him other services benefits such as pension, gratuity etc. und....
A suspension order must be accompanied by a charge sheet explaining the reasons for suspension.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the amendment of Certified Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, can be justified in law if made in acc....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
