LexTHE BAGALKOT CEMENT CO. LTD. versus R. K. PATHAN & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2 s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
li97
the minerals under the land in suit and that tho
decree in· their favour is correct. We therefore
dismiss the appeal with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
THE BAGALKOT CEMENT CO. LTD.
"·
R. K. PATHAN & ORS.
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. IC SARKAl{ and
K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.)
Standing Orders-Certification of draft aubrnitted by emp·
loyer-Power of Certifying Officer an_d Appell,ate A_uthority-lf
can fix quantum OJ !<ave and /<Ol•day-1 nduatria! Empwy-
ment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 \20 of 1946), as mnended
by Amending Act of 1956, ••· 4,10, Schedule, cl. 5.
The appellant company submitted draft
Standing
Orders as required by s. 3 of the Industrial Employment
(Standing Orders) Act, 1946, to the Certifying
Officer.
The Certifying Officer in certifying the said draft added a
clause to paragraph 11 of the said draft which provided,
inter alia, for certain festival holidays and causal and annual
leave for a numt>er of days.
On appeal the
Appellate
Authority in substance !'gree with the additions made by
the Certifying Officer. The question raised in the appeal
was whether the Certifying Officer or the Appellate. Authority
had the jurisdiction under the Act to make the additions in
the draft Standing Orders. Section 4 of the Act provides,
inter alia, that the draft standing orders could be certified
if they provided for every matter mentioned in the Schedule
to the Act and cl. 5 of the Schedule provided as follows :
''conditions of, procedure in applying for, and the
authority which may grant, leave and holidays."
Held, that the Certifying Officer and the Appellate
Authority had the jurisdiction in making the addition that
they did.
The word "conditions" in cl. 5 should be construed
not in a narrow way . but in a broad and liberal sense con-
sistently with the object of the Act and, so construed, there
could be no doubt that cl. 5 was not merely procedural but
covered the substantive provision for fixing the quantun1 of
Hl62
Tlie Lod11a Colliery
Oo. Lid.
v.
Bhola Nath Rn_1·.
Roghubar Da;•al J.
1962
J9Gt
1 A1 Botalkol Calillfl
c •. tul.
..
R. K. Potll.n
698 SOPRIDIB COURT REPORTS (lll62] SUl'P.
holidays and leave so that the conditions of emplo}ment
might be made prrcise and definite and prescribed in the form
of Standing Orders having statuto1 y efTccu.
lleld, further, that the Certifying Officer as well a• the
Appellate Authority were in substance industrial authority,
and having regard to the power given to them under the
Schedule there could be no inc·.nsistency in holding that they
had also the power of fixing the quantum of holidays and
leave as well. Anv hardship that might be cau•cd by their
orders could be rectified under s. I 0 of the Act.
C1nL APPELLATE Juruso1CTION : Civil Appeal
No. 5i7 of 1960.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment
and order dated October 15, 1959, of the Appellate
Authority (Chief Labour Commissioner, Central,
New Delhi), in Appeal under e. 6 of the Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.
B. Narayanasuamy, 8. N.
Andley
and
RamA?shu:ar Nath, for the appellant.
Jf. K. Ra11wmurthi, for the respondent.
1962. January 2!:..-The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
Oojmd,..1a<ik"'J.
GAJENDRAGADKAII, J.-This a.pp· al h,v special
kave raises a short qneation
about the srope and
effect of cl3.•1se 5 in the 8c~he<lule to the Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (20 of
I !l46) (hereinafter caIIPd the Act ).
'J bat question
arisrs in this w.1y.
The appellant Bagalkot Cement.
<'o. Lt<l. is a Limited Company rcgiRtcrecl
under
the fnclian Companie.a Act, 1930; it carrie8 on the
business of manufacturing rcmnnt and for that pur-
pose, it owrrn a factory a8 wdl M a limestone Qua-
rry at 13a~alkot in the Sta.to of Mysore.
As requir-
ed bys. :~ uf the Act, the appellant suLmitti>d draft
Standing Orders on the 3rcl
March, 1!)58,
to the
Certifying (Jfficer and the Ht·gional Labour Com-
missioner (C0ntmll, :\hi!· a'.
in order that they
sbC>u Id be e"rtifi«d. Tlw C. rt ify ing Offic:cr cunsid«rrd
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME C0Ult1' REl'OltTS
6\19
the draft submitted by the appellant, heard the
appellant and its employees, the respondents and
passed an order of eertilication on the 16th June,
l 959. While considering the draft for the purpose
of certificatiou, the Certifying Officer, however,
made certain amendments in, and additions to, the
said draft. Amongst the addExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.