LexGENERAL MANAGER, BHILAI STEEL PROJECT, BHILAI versus STEEL WORKERS UNION, BHOPAL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] the appellants have succeeded in respect of the retire- ment age and that an order of remand has been passed Workmen of by us in their favour for a reconsideration of their Balmer Lawrie claim as to revision of the wage scales, we direct and Co. that the respondent should pay the appellants their 1963 v. costs in this Court. Balmer Lawrie and Co. Gajendragadkar J. 1963 November 8 A.ward partly set aside and case remanded. GENERAL MANAGER, BHILAI STEEL PROJECT, BHILAI v. STEEL WORKERS' UNION, BHOPAL AND ORS. (P.B. GA.JENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO AND K.C. DAS GUPTA JJ.) Standing Orders- Certification-Jurisdiction of Certifying Officer-The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, (Act No. 20 of 1946)-The Madhya Pradesh Industrial Workmen (Stand- ing Orders) Act (M.P. Act No. 19 of 1959)-The Madhya Pradesh Industrial Workmen (Standing Orders) Act (M.P. Act No. 26 of 1961) -The Madhya Pradesh Industrial Workmen (Standing Orders) Act (M. P. Act No. 5of1962) The Madhya Pradesh Gel'leral Clauses A.ct (M.P. Act No. 3 of 1958), s. 25-The C.P. & Berar Industrial Disputes and Settlement Act (No. 22 of 1947). The appellant submitted for certification draft standing orders on June 9, 1960 to the Certifying .Officer under the: Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The respondents raised an objection that the Certifying Officer had no jurisdiction inasmuch as the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Workmen (Standing Orders) Act, 1959 applied to this industry and the Industrial Em- ployment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Overruling this objection the Certifying Officer certified the draft standing orders on August 6, 1962. The respondents appealed to the Industrial Court, Madhya Pradesh which upheld the objection and set aside the order of certification as void, being without jurisdiction. In appeal by special leave: t 5 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 355 Held: That though on June 9, 1960 when the draft standing 1963 orders were submitted to the Certifying Officer under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, the Certifying Officer General Manager had no jurisdiction to deal with them, the officer had acquired Bhilai Steel jurisdiction in the matter before August 6, 1962 when he passed . . . the order certifying the standing orders. The Certification cannot Pro;ect, Bhzlai be held to be void merely because on the date when the orders were v. submitted, the Certifying Officer had no jurisdiction. The applica- Steel Workers' tion should be deemed to have been renewed immediately after Union Bhopal the officer acquired jurisdiction in the matter and so that jurisdic- and Others tion having continued upon the date of the certification, the certification also would be with jurisdiction and binding. Municipal Board, Pushkar v. State Transport Authority, Rajas- than, [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 373, followed. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 764 to 766 of 1963. Appeals by special leave from the order dated November 16, 1962, of the Industrial Court Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Appeals Nos. 2/E.S.0./1962, 3/E.S.0./1962 and 4/E.S.0./1962 respectively. S. V. Gupte, Additional Solicitor-General, Y. Kumar and R.H. Dhebar, tor the appellants. I.N. Shroff, for respondent No. 3 (in C.A. No. 746/63). M.K. Ramamurthy, R.K. Garg, S.C. Agarwal and D.P. Singh, for respondent No. 1 (in C.A. No. • 756/63). ~ November 8, 1963. The Judgment of the Court • was delivered by DAS GUPTA J.-These three appeals are directed Das Gupta J . against an order of the Industrial Court Madhya Pradesh, in three appeals from an order' made by one Mr. LB. Sany.al, who was the Certifying Officer, under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, !946, hereinafter referred to as "the Central Standmg Orders Act." By thi.s order made on August 6, 1962, Mr._ Sanyal had cer!Ified the draft standing orders su_bm1tted by the General Manager, Bhilai Steel ProJe.ct, ~adhya Pradesh. On behalf of the several Umons, mcluding the three Unions, who are the respondents before us, an objection was raised 356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] 1963 that Mr. Sanyal had no jurisdiction to certify the - Standing Orders inasmuch as the Madhya Pradesh GeneralM~n~gerindustrial Workmen (Standing Orders) Act, 1959 PSt~el Bhi/~, . applied to this industry and not the Central Standing ro;ect, Bhilai Orders Act. Mr. Sanyal overruled this ob
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.