LexUNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus K. SURI BABU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2023] 15 S.C.R. 1046 : 2023 INSC 1033 1046 CASE DETAILS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. K. SURI BABU (Civil Appeal No. 1320 of 2010) NOVEMBER 29, 2023 [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, C. T. RAVIKUMAR AND SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent-workman, could be initiated under the Central Civil Services (Classifi cation, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 or it could be done only under the Standing Orders certifi ed for the Nuclear Fuel Complex-Hyderabad on 27.08.1973, under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 – Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 – Tribunal upheld the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings by the Nuclear Fuel Complex-Hyderabad, against the respondent under the Central Civil Services (Classifi cation, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 – Order set aside by High Court – Case of the respondent is that he being a workman will be covered by the Standing Orders under the 1946 Act which contain provisions to deal with matters, inter alia, of disciplinary proceedings: Held: Standing Orders made under the 1946 Act are Rules specifi c to workmen in an industrial establishment – 1946 Act, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and other such legislations of this period, are worker friendly legislations, enacted to regulate the working conditions of workmen – Standing Orders grant a protection to a workman, inter alia, when he faces a disciplinary proceeding initiated by the employer – Employer is undoubtedly on a much powerful position than a workman and has much stronger bargaining power and consequently the statute has been made to 1047 create a balance – The protection of the 1946 Act, cannot be denied to a workman merely for the reason that the employer grants him other services benefi ts such as pension, gratuity etc. under CCA Rules – A standing order is no ordinary order – It has a statutory mandate – CCA Rules, 1965 are the general Rules whereas Standing Orders are the Special Rules and will override any other general Rule including CCA Rules, 1965 – Moreover, the Standing Orders cover a wide area of activities of a workman and are workmen specifi c yet in view of s.13B of 1946 Act, a specifi c notifi cation can be made applying CCA Rules, 1965 to that specifi c aspect – But a notifi cation is necessary – In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that after the standing orders, which stood certifi ed in the year 1973 and were in force, any subsequent modifi cation was made or any order passed curtailing these standing orders, u/s.10 of the 1946 Act – In the absence of notifi cation u/s.13B of the 1946 Act, there is no fault with the order of the High Court holding that it will be the standing orders and not the CCA Rules, 1965 which will be applicable – Service conditions of respondents will be governed by the Standing Orders as far as the disciplinary proceedings are concerned – Order passed by the High Court upheld – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Service Law. [Paras 7, 8, 11, 17, 18, 20 and 21] Service Law – Special Rules vis-à-vis General Rules – Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 vis-à-vis Central Civil Services (Classifi cation, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965: Held: Standing Orders have the nature of Special Rules – Only in those cases, where the Special Rules fail to lay down provisions for dealing with certain subjects, can the General Rules be pressed into service – The CCA Rules are General Rules which apply to all Government Servants – In the present case, when the Standing Orders for the Department clearly laid down a procedure to be followed in cases of Disciplinary proceedings under Order Nos. 38, 39 & 40, there was no reason for the Department to initiate the said proceedings under the CCA Rules – NFC, Hyderabad failed to place on record any modifi cation made u/s.10 of the 1946 Act to show that the Standing Orders certifi ed for NFC-Hyderabad would not be applicable to the respondent. [Paras 19, 20] UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. K. SURI BABU 1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 15 S.C.R. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 – Objective and purpose – Discussed. LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES Sudhir Chandra Sarkar v. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. [1984] 3 SCR 325: (1984) 3 SCC 369; U.P. State Electricity Board and Another v. Hari
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.