LexSALEM ERODE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. versus SALEM ERODE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. EMPLOYEES UNION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SALEM ERODE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. v. SALEM ERODE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. EMPLOYEES UNION November 3, 1965 [P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.J A B Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946-Application for amendment of certified Standing Order$-Proposed amendments applying C different rules to existing and new employees-Whether fair and reasonable -Whether certifying officer has power in law to refuse amendment. The appellant company, which carried on the business of buying bulk electrical energy and distributing it to consumers, made an application under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, to the Certifying Officer, Madras, for an amendment of two of its certified Standing Orders relating to holidays and leave. It was claim~d by the D appellant that the urgent need for increased production and for increased supply of electrical energy could be met if the existing rules embodied in the two standing orders were suitably amended; the amendments pr<>- posed sought to introduce different rules relating to holidays and leave for employees who were appointed before a specified date and those who joined service after that date. The proposed amendments were resisted by the respondents' union on E the ground, inter a/ia, that they would introduce discrimination betwcco one set of employees and another resulting in industrial unrest and dis- harmony. The Certifying Officer upheld the respondents' plea and nega- tived the amendments. An appeal to the appellate authority against this decision was dismissed. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the proposed amend- ments11 werethfair1 anhd dreasonedable1 and_ thatt the tCertf . ifyi1'hng SOtfficder an0ddthe F appe ate au on y a err m aw m no cer 1 ymg e an mg · r ers as proposed to. be amended. HELD : (i) The Certifying Officer and the appellate authority com- mitted no error of law in refusing to certify the modified Standing Orders. [510 E] The Act prmides a self-contained code and the Certifying Officer is given the power to consider questions of fairness and reasonableness as G well as other questions indicated by s. 4(a) and (b). An appeal is provided against tlte decision of the Certifying Officer and in case a dispute arises as to the interpretation or the application of the Standing Order, a remedy is provided in s. 13A. A right is given both to the employer and the workman to move the appropriate authorities for modi· fication of the existing Standing Orders. [505 G-H] (ii) It is clear from the provisions of the Act requiring industrial establishments to have their Standing Orders certified that matters specifted H in the Schedule to the Act should be covered by uniform Standing Orders <: applicable to all workmen employed in an industrial establishment. [SOS BJ ' ·' .. • A B SALEM m;.ECTRICITY v. EMPLOYEES ( Gajendragadkar, C.l.) 4 9 9 Rai Bahadur Diwan Badri Das v. The Industrial Tribunal, Punjab; (1963] 3 S.C.R. 930; Associated Cement Staff Union v. Associated Cement Co. & Ors. (1964) I L.L.J. 12; Guest Keen Williams Private Ltd. v. F. l. Sterling and others : [1960] 1 S.C.R. 348; referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : C.A. No. 305 of 1964. Appeal by Special Leave from the order dated the 9th April, 1963 of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, in C.S.O. Appeal No. 1 of 1962. M. C. Setalvad, and Naunit Lal, for the appellant. M. K. Ramamurthi, R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh and S. C. Agar- C wa/a, for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar, C.J. The appellant, Salem Erode Electricity Distribution Co., Ltd., is a licensee under the Indian Electricity Act,. 1910, and its business consists in buying electrical energy D in bulk from the State Electricity Board of Madras and selling it to consumers in Salem and Erode and certain rural districts in the State of Madras. For the purpose of carrying on. this busi- ness, the appellant has an industrial establishment at Salem. In or about 1940, when the number of the appellant's con- E sumers was about 3,000, and that of its workmen about 45, the appellant framed certain terms and conditions of its workmen's employment. Amongst these were included terms about leave and holidays. Later, when the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (No. 20 of 1946) (hereinafter called 'the Act') came into fo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.