CALCUTTA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPN. LTD. versus SHEW KR. SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 184 · Decided: 30-11-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
CALCUTTA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPN. LTD. 
v. 
SHEW KR. SINGH AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 30, 2000 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.) 
labour law: 
Industrial Employment (Standing orders) Act, 1946: 
Section 13-A-App/ication or interpretation of-Invoking of-Held: 
The claim for interpretation of a standing orders by any employer or workman 
or a trade union is covered by S.13-A-Certified Standing Order, 1953, Cl. 
15-Service Law. 
D 
In this appeal the following question arose before this Court:-
Whether Section 13-A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) 
Act, 1946 can be invoked by any employer or workman or a trade union or 
other representative body of workman with regard to the application or 
E interpretation of a standing order? 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The High Court has rightly taken the view that the 
apprehension of respondent No. I cannot be stated to be as one purely 
F imaginary not based on facts and merely an appreshension in his mind. The 
first respondent's claim for interpretation of clause 15 of the appellant's 
Certified standing Order, 1953 is that there was action taken invoking the 
provisions of clause 15 in a particular manner, correctness of which was put 
in issue for interpretation and that such a matter cannot be stated to be one 
not covered by Section 13-A of the Industrial Employment (Standing orders) 
G Act, 1946. This view of the High Court, therefore, does not call for any 
interference. ( 186-A-BJ 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5872 of 1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.9.96 of the Calcutta High Court 
184 
-
CALCUTTA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPN. LTD.'" SHEW KR. SINGH [RAIENDRA BABU, I.] \ 85 
in F.M.A. No. 87of1988. 
Bhasker Gupta, K. V. V ishwanathan, Ms. Gauri Rasgotra and Ms. Suman 
Jyoti Khaitan for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RAJENDRA BABU, J. This appeal is filed against the orders made by 
the High Court either by the learned Single Judge or by the Division Bench 
A 
B 
of the High Court on an appeal thereto declining to interfere with an 
adjudication by the Tribunal under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) 
Act, 1946 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] either by the learned Single 
Judge or by the Division Bench of the High Court on an appeal thereto. 
C 
Section 13-A of the Act provides that if any question arises as to the 
application or interpretation of a standing order any employer or workman or 
a trade union or other representative body of workmen may refer the question 
to any one of the Labour Courts and the Labour Court to which such 
question is referred shall, after giving opportunity to the parties, decide the D 
same, which shall be final and binding on the parties. Standing Order I 5(x),. 
of the Certified Standing Order of 1953 of the appellant provides that taking 
intoxicants or noxious drugs while on duty or being under their influence 
when ~eporting for duty, would amount to misconduct entailing dismissal and 
Standing Order 15(b) provides that no order of dismissal or suspension for E 
more than a week or of stoppage of increment shall be made until an enquiry 
has been held to investigate the circumstances of the case and to decide what 
offence or offences were committed. The accused workman shall have the 
right to be present at the enquiry and to produce any witness in his defence. 
Detailed and elaborate provisions have been made as to composition of the 
enquiry committee, report to be made and action to be taken thereon. 
F 
One Sushil Kumar Muk,herjee had been dismissed invoking the aforesaid 
provisions without holding an enquiry. However, that matter became final as 
the Labour Court and the High Court dismissed the order made therein. In 
..,, 
those circumstances, an application was filed before the Tribunal under the' 
Act seeking interpretation as to the true effect of these provisions. The G 
contention put forth on behalf of the appellant is that there is no present 
dispute or controversy between the parties and that what led respondent 
No. I to file his application is an apprehension in his mind that unless there 
is a proper interpretation of clause 15 of the Certified Standing Order of 1953, 
the management is likely to victimise the workmen. The Tribunal rejected this H 
186 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A contention. The High Court held that the apprehension of the applicant-
respondent No. I cannot be stated to b

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