BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. versus MAHARASHTRA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 517 · Decided: 14-12-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. 
A 
v. 
MAHARASHTRA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 14, 1998 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
B 
Labour Law : 
Standing Orders-Certified by the Certifj1ing Authority and Model 
standing Orders framed by the Central Government 
under Industrial C 
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, I946-Inconsistency-Domestic enquiry-
Representation of the delinquent by another person-Right to-Held, available 
to the delinquent only to the extent specifically provided in the service 
rules--Provision in the Draft Standing orders permitting the delinquent to 
be represented by a fellow workmen of the same establishment-Held, neither 
unreasonable nor unfair nor lacked consonance with Model Standing Orders 
which permitted representation of the delinquent by a Member of the union 
D 
of which the delinquent was a member, although that member was employed 
elsewhere-Industrial Employment (Standing Orders ) Act, 1946, Sections 
5,6,2(ee), I 2-A 7, JO af!d I 5(2)(bj-lndustrial Employment (Standing Orders) 
Central Rules, 1946-Model Standing Orders, para 14(4)(ba)-Railway E 
Establishment Code, Rule 1712-Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965, 
Rule 14(8)- Departmental Enquiry-Natural Justice-Hearing. 
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, Section 4 (as 
amended in 1965), 5 and 6-Jurisdiction of CertifYing Officer and Appellate 
Alllhority-Held. i:1· not limited to examining whether the Draft Standing F 
Order conformed to the Model Standing Orders but extends to determination 
of fairness and reasonableness of the provisions of the Standing Orders. 
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, I 946-Nature and scope of-
Held, is a beneficent piece of legislation-Interpretation of Sta/lites-Beneficent 
legislation. 
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 Sections 5(2) & 
(3)-Certification of Standing Orders-Effects of-Held, Certified Standing 
Orders constitute the conditions of service binding upon the management 
and new employees. 
G 
Draft Standing Orders were submitted by the appellant to the Certifying H 
517 
518 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A Officer for certification under Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) 
Act, 1946. It was certified with various modifications . One of the clauses 
of the Draft Standing Orders which was not certified related to the 
representation of an employee, during departmental proceedings and as a 
result of which provisions as contained in the Model Standing Orders framed 
B by the Central Government continued to apply to the appellant's Establishment 
On appeal filed on behalf of the appellant as well as by Respondent l before 
the Appellate Authbrity the clause relating to the representation of an 
employee during the departmental proceedings, as set out in the Draft 
Standing Orders, was approved. The order of the Appellate Authority was 
challenged by Respondent l before the High Court, was set aside by it Hence 
C this appeal. 
It was contended by the appellant that Model Standing Orders would 
operate only during the period of time when the Standing Orders were not 
framed by the Establishment itself. On the contrary, it was contended by 
Respondent l that Draft Standing Orders as framed by the Establishment 
D could not depart either in policy or principle from the Model Standing 
Orders. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : I. In departmental proceedings an employee has no right to 
represent another person or a lawyer unless the Service Rules specifically 
E provide for the same. The right to representation is available only to the 
extent specifically provided in the Rules. Under Rule 1712 of the Railway 
Establishment Code a choice is given to the delinquent to be represented by 
another railway employee, but the choice is restricted to the Railway on 
which he himself is working, that is, if he is an employee of the Western 
F Railway his choice could be restricted to the employees working on the 
Western Railways. The choice cannot be allowed to travel to other Railways. 
Similarly, a provision has been made in Rule 14(8) of the Central Civil 
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 where an employee 
has been given the choice of being represented in the disciplinary proceedings 
through a co-employee. [527-G; 528-A-BI 
G 
Kalindi & Ors. v. Tata Locomotive and Engineering Comany Ltd., AIR 
(1960) SC 914: [196013SCR407; Dunlop Rubber Company v. Workmen, 
11965) 2 SCR 139: AIR 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.