MUTHOOT PAPPACHAN CONSULTANCY Vs. LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a firm engaged in the business of professional consultancy and man-power and management services. The petitioner submitted draft standing orders for certification under Section 3 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 before the jurisdictional Deputy Labour Commissioner, who has been notified as the certifying officer under the Act. The same was certified in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 5 of the Act after conducting necessary enquiry and adjudication. Such certification was on 28.5.1998. The Act itself provides for an appeal either by the management or by the workmen if they are aggrieved by any clause in the Standing Orders as certified. None of the parties involved filed appeal against the Standing Orders of the petitioner firm as certified and the same became final. One-and-a-half years after the certification, by Ext.P2 notice, purportedly issued under Section 6 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders), Act read with rule 10A of the Kerala Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1958, the respondent directed the petitioner to show cause why the certification should not be rescinded suo mutu. Although the petitioner filed Ext.P3 objections to Ext.P2 notice and the authorized and elected representative of the employees of the petitioner's establishment filed Ext.P4 statement requesting the respondent to withdraw the show cause notice and to affirm the Standing Orders already certified, by Ext.P5 order dated 15.1.2000purportedly issued under section 2(c) of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946, the respondent cancelled the certified Standing Orders dated 28.5.1998. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 order of the respondent, in this original petition.

(2.) The contentions raised by the petitioner are as follows: - (1) The respondent being a certifying officer himself under section 2(c) of the Act, has no jurisdiction to cancel his own earlier order. (2) Ext.P2 notice was issued by the respondent invoking his appellate jurisdiction under Section 6 of the Act and Rule 10A of the Standing Orders rules, for which the respondent has no suo motu powers conferred by the Act. (3) The Standing Orders once certified can only be affirmed, modified or amended in appeal, and cannot be cancelled either by the certifying authority or the appellate authority, especially since none of the parties involved had no objection against the certified Standing Orders. (4) Going by Ext.P2 notice and Ext.P5 order, it is very clear that the respondent has invoked purported jurisdiction under the Act at the instance of a third party, viz, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, who has nothing to do with the certification of the Standing orders of an establishment, for which also there is no provision anywhere in the Act. (5) Ext.P5 order was not preceded by any adjudication. (6) The reasons mentioned for canceling are also unsustainable in law.

(3.) In answer to the above contentions, the learned Government Pleader would submit that Ext.P5 order was not passed by the respondent in exercise of the appellate powers, but only invoking his powers as the Certifying Officer which he also is as per Section 2(c) of the Act. According to the learned government Pleader, by virtue of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, as the person who has the power to certify the Standing Orders, the Certifying officer has power to cancel the same also. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the reasons mentioned in Ext.P5 are perfectly sustainable for cancellation of the certification of the standing Orders.