MANAGEMENT OF MANIPAL POWER PRESS Vs. SADANANDA DEVADIGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ appeals are by the workmen and the management challenging the orders of the learned single judge in W. P. Nos. 4270, 4708/1999, 765-66/1999, 15383/1999, 40297-299/1999 and 2778/2000 and 2778/2000 and 2920/2000 dated November 15, 2000 and W. P. No. 35364/2000 c/w 18322/2000 and 7466-7468/2000 dated January 4, 2001.

(2.) THE workmen made an application for amendment of the standing orders of the year 1968 by making an application under subsection (2) of Secrion 10 of the industrial employment (standing orders) act, 1946 (for short, 'the act' ). The said application was allowed by the certifying officer by fixing the age of retirement of the workmen at 58 years. This Orderwas challenged by both the workmen and the management by way of an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority by Orderdated January 6, 1999 set aside the Orderof the certifying officer on the ground that the principles of natural justice had not been followed, and remanded the matter to the certifying officer for fresh consideration. This Orderwas challenged both by the management and the workmen by way of filing writ petitions before this court. The learned single judge clubbed, all cases and passed a common Orderdated November 15, 2000. The learned single judge disposed of the writ petitions by quashing the orders of the certifying officer and the appellate authority and remitted the matter, back to the certifying officer to reconsider the matter afresh keeping the Orderof the certifying officer in force till a fresh decision is taken. Aggrieved by the direction issued by the learned single judge to keep the Orderof the certifying officer alive till the matter is disposed of by him, the management has filed these writ appeal Nos. 149/2001 and 937/2001 to 941/2001 and 693/ 2001 to 704/2001. The workmen have also filed the appeals challenging the Orderof the learned single judge (w. a. Nos. 945-95/2001 ).

(3.) SRI m. c. narasimhan, the learned counsel appearing for the workmen submits that the learned single judge has not noticed that the appellate authority has no power to remand the matter for fresh consideration to the certifying officer. In support of his contention, he has drawn our attention to sub-section (1) of Secrion 6 of the act, which reads as under: