THE ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANY LTD. versus SHRI P. D. VYAS AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1960] 2 S.C.R. 974 · Decided: 11-02-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
Corporation of the 
City of Nagpur 
v. 
Its Employees 
Subba Rao ]. 
z960 
February, II 
• 
974 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960 (2)] 
with industrial departments, is also an industry. 
Hence the employees of this department are also 
entitled to the benefits of this Act. 
The State Industrial Court held that five of the 
departments of the Corporation did not fall within 
the terms of the definition of" industry " in the Act. 
The employees of these departments did not file any 
appeal against the finding of the State Industrial 
Court and we do not propose to express our final 
opinion on the correctness of the decision of the 
Industrial Court in regard to these activities. 
In the result the appeals fail and are dismissed 
with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
THE ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANY LTD. 
v. 
SHRI P. D. VY AS AND OTHERS. 
(B. P. GAJENDRAGADKAR AND K. c. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) 
Ind,,strial Disp,,te-Standing 
Orders-Draft su.bmitted by 
employer for 
approval-Modification 
by 
Certifyitig Ojficer-
J"risdiction-Ind"strial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, I946 
(20 of I946) SS. J, 4, 5, I5(2) (b). 1 
The draft standing orders submitted by the appellants to 
the certifying officer for certification under s. 3(1) of the 
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, were 
altered by the latter on the footing that the modifications were 
necessary so as to be in conformity \Vith the model standing 
orders. 
Section 4 of the Act, before it was amended in 1956, 
provided that "it shall not be the function of the certifying 
officer or the appellate authority to adjudicate upon the fairness 
or reasonableness of the provisions of any standing order," 
while under s. 3(2) the draft shall be, as far as is practicable, in 
conformity with the model standing orders, where they have 
been prescribed. The question was whether the certifying 
officer had jurisdiction to make the modifications in the present 
case. 
Held, that there is a distinction between considerations of 
fairness or reasonableness and those of practicability, and that 
though the certifying officer may not modify the draft on the 
ground that its provisions are unfair or unreasonable, he can 
and must modify it in matters covered by the model standing 
( 
-
-
.. 
• 
••• 
976 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(2)] 
,960 
been made in accordance with the model standing 
order on this subject. Similarly, item No. 16(2) in the 
Associated 
C•ment Co. Ltd. draft standing orders provided that striking work 
v. 
either singly or with other workers without giving 
P. D. Vyas 
fourteen days' previous notice would be treatPd as 
-
misconduct; whereas item No. 16(3) provided that 
Gajendragadka. J. inciting while on the premises a,ny worker to strike 
work shall be treated as misconduct. 
These two 
provisions in the draft have been modified by respon-
dent 2 and the order thus modified provides that 
striking work illegally either siggly or with other 
workers or abetting, inciting, instigating or acting in 
furtherance of an illegal strike would be treated as 
misconduct. This modification also is consistent with 
the relevant provision in the model standing order. 
• 
:Feeling aggrieved by the modifications made by 
respondent 2 in the draft submitted by them the 
appellants preferred an appeal to the Industrial court 
(hereinafter called respondent 1). 
Respondent l was 
not impressed by the contentions raised by the appel, 
!ants with the result that the modifications made by 
respondent 2 were confirmed and the appeal was 
dismissed. 
Thereupon the appellants filed a writ petition, being 
Miscellaneous Application No. 267 of 1954, in the 
Bombay High Court challenging the validity of the 
action of respondents 2 and 1. Mr Justice Coyajce, 
who heard the said application, upheld the contention 
raised by the appellants and came to the concluEion 
that in making the impugned modifications respon-
dent 2 and respondent 1 had acted beyond their 
jurisdiction. The learned judge, therefore, set aside 
the modifications made and allowed the appellants' 
petition. 
Against this order respondent 2 preferred an appeal, 
being Appeal No. 122 of 1954, before the Court of 
Appeal in the Bombay High Court. The appellate 
court reversed the decision of Coyajee J. and held that 
the action of respondents 2 and 1 in making the 
modifications in question was justified by the provi-
sions ,of the Act. In the result the petition filed by 
the appellants was dismissed. It is against this dec

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