JUDGMENT

Sanjiv Khanna, J.

The petitioner-Indian Airlines was initially incorporated as a corporation under the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Air Act, for short).

2. Under Section 45 of the Air Act, the petitioner had framed regulations relating to terms and conditions of service of its officers and its employees.

3. As per the writ petition in and around 1978, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) wrote to the petitioner about its intention to proceed with certification proceedings under the Industrial Employees (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the Standing Orders Act, for short) in respect of the service regulations made by the petitioner. This was objected to by the petitioner on the ground that the Standing Orders Act was not applicable to it. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) as certifying authority under the Standing Orders Act overruled this and other objections in its order dated 24th June,1980 and held that the petitioner was required to get the service regulations certified under the standing orders Act and on failure to do so, the petitioner would render itself liable for penal action. This order dated 24th June, 1980 was amended by a subsequent Order dated 4th July, 1980 and the certifying authority gave its findings on various Clauses on the service regulations made by the petitioner.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by the Certifying Authority, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 6 of the Standing Orders Act, before the Chief Labour Commissioner again raising the contention that the service regulations framed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Air Act with prior approval of the Central Government were not amenable to certification/modification/amendment by the Certifying Officer. It was submitted that the service regulations framed under Section 45(2)(b) of the air Act have a statutory force.

5. The Chief Labour Commissioner vide the impugned order dated 31st May, 1983 rejected the objection raised by the petitioner and, inter alia, held that the petitioner was an "industrial establishment" as defined in Section 2(e) of the Standing Orders Act and therefore the said Act was applicable.

6. Aggrieved by the Orders passed by the Certifying Officer and the Appellate Authority under the Standing Orders Act, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

7. The short issue argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Lalit Bhasin in the present Writ Petition is whether the Standing Orders Act was/is applicable to petitioner corporation. Contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the provisions of the Standing Orders Act do not apply as service regulations have been framed under a special statute i.e. Air Act and in view of Section 45 of the said Act the service regulations do not require certification.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice, a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in the case of Air India v. Union of India and Others, reported at 43 (1991) DLT 17 (DB) wherein an identical controversy had arisen. It may be relevant to state here that Air India was also incorporated under the provisions of the Air Act. It was submitted on behalf of Air India that service regulations have been framed by it under Section 45 of the Air Act and the Standing Orders Act would not apply. However, a Division Bench of this Court held that the Standing Orders Act is a special Act and the Air Act is a general Act and therefore the provisions of the Standing Orders Act would apply. While holding so, the Bench relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board and Another v. Hari Shankar Jain and Others, reported in AIR 1979 SC 65. The Division Bench has further held that Section 45 of the Air Act did not oust the applicability of the Standing Orders Act because it deals with a specific provision, namely, service regulation