LexMANAGEMENT SHAHDARA (DEL,HI) SAHARANPUR LIGHT RAILWAY CO., LTD. versus S.S. RAILWAY WORKERS UNION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' A MANAGEMENT SHAHDARA (DEl,HI) SAHARANPUR B c D E F G H LIGHT RAILWAY CO., LTD. v. S.S. RAILWAY WORKERS' UNION September 18, 1968 [J, M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAVA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] ; Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act (20 of 1946), as amended by Act 36 of 1956, ss. 6 and 10(2)-Modification of existing Standing Orders-When permitted. Six months after the appellant's Standing Orders as modified had come into operation, the respondent applied for further modification of the Standing Orders, under s. 10(2) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, as amended in 1956. The certifying officer allowed some of the modifications and on appeal by the respondent, the Appellate Authority allowed some more modifications. In appeal, to this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution, the appellant objected to four modifications, namely : (i) that the appellant should give reasons and communicate them to the workmen even in cases of discharge simpliciter; (ii) that appeals against penalties imposed should be disposed of within 60 days; (iii) that when a workman is removed on the ground of inefficiency due to physical unfitness, the appellant should offer to such workman alternative employment on reasonable emolu- ments; and (iv) that a second show cause notice should be served on the workman at the. stage of taking a decision on the suitable punish- ment. The gtounds urged were : (I) The authorities under the Act can certify modifications of existing Standing Orders under s. 10(2) only when a change of circumstauces is established, because, s. 6 of the Act confers finality on certified Standing Orders or modifications thereof; (2). On principles analogous to res judicnta, the authorities had no juris- diction to grant the modifications in the present case; and (3) the modifi- cations were not reasonable or fair. HELD: (I) [Per Shela! and Vaidialingam, JJ.]: A change of circum- stances is not a condition precedent to the maintainability of an application for ·modification under s. 10(2). Under the Act before its 'amendment in 1956, a workman could not object that the Standing Orders were not reasonable or fair. His only remedy was to raise an industrial dispute, but that remedy was unsatis- factory, since the dispute had to be sponsored by a union or at least a substantial number of \VOrkmen and even then, the process was a pro- tracted one. Parliament knew that the workmen had the right to raise an industrial dispute and also the defects in that remedy and so amended ss. 4 and 10 of the Act by Act 36 of 1956. The amendment conferred on individual workman the right to object to draft Standing Orders submitted by an employer on the ground that they are either not fair or not reasonable, and also gave the right to apply for their modification. Under s. 6, a pe.rson a,~grieved by the order of the certifying officer certifying or modifying Standing Orders. may appeal to the Appellate AuthOrity whose decision shall be final. But the finality only means that there is no further appeal or revision against the order and that the order cannot be challenged in a civil court. It can, ho.wever. be modi· tied under s. 10(2). The only limitations on the power are, (a) reason: 132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1969] 2 S.C.R. ableness and fairness of the modification, and (b) except on agreement beh.veen employer and the workmen six months must have elapsed from the date on which the StandinA Orders or the last modific:.i.tions thereof. came into operation. the object being that Standing Orders or the modi- fic~tions should he allO\Vcd to work for some time to see if they are satisfactory. In an application for modification the issue before the authority would be not as ta reasonableness or fairness of the existing Standing Orders. hut \\'hethcr the modification applied for is fair and reasonable. Such an application is am independent application and merely because it could be made on the ground that the existing Standing Orders are discovered to be 1p1satisfactory even \Vithout any change in circumstances, it would not amount to a review of an earlier order. Further, there will not be a 1nultiplicity of applications because the work- men in.dividually have the right to apply for modifications. For, unless there is some justification for the modification, the authdrities under the Act would reject the applications. [139 G-H; 140 C-D; 141
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.