INDIA CEMENTS LIMITED TIRUNELVELI Vs. LABOUR COURT MADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a company registered under the Companies act, having its registered office at Dhun Buildings, Mount Road , Madras . The petitioner-company is engaged in the manufacture and sale of portland cement. The petitioner has its factory at Shankar Nagar , Tirunelveli , Sankaridurg , Salem District. India Cement's Workers'Union, Shankar Nagar , which is one of the trade unions for the workers (third respondent herein) submitted a proposal to the Certifying Officer - second respondent, under S. 10 (2) of the Industrial employment (Standing Orders) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the "act") seeking modifications of Standing Orders 10 and 12 (b) which are as follows : "standing Order 10 - The scales of pay and the rates of wages will be fixed by the management and altered from time to time according to the circumstances with the consent of the recognised union. Those relating to workmen will be posted on the notice board of the time office". " Standing Order 12 (b)-Workmen shall be liable to be transferred from one department or section to another or from one shift to another by the management or by officers empowered in this behalf whenever it is found necessary in the interest of the company in consultation with the recognised union, subject to the condition such transferred workers service, status, seniority, emoluments are protected". The second respondent-Certifying Officer on receipt of the said proposal, called upon the petitioner to submit their objections for the proposed amendment. The petitioner objected to the aforesaid amendment. The second respondent-Certifying Officer after giving notice to the parties concerned, by order, notice to the parties concerned, by order, dated 1st september, 1982, held that there are no ground to interfere with the existing standing Orders and hence, declined to accede to the request of the third respondent-union to amend the Certified Standing Order in the manner suggested. Aggrieved by the said order of the second respondent, the third respondent-union preferred an appeal before the appellate authority under S. 6 of the Act. The appellate authority by the impugned order, dated 20 December 1983, in Standing Order Appeal No. 1 of 1982, accepted the finding of the second respondent-Certifying Officer in so far as the amendment that was sought for to Standing Order 10 is concerned and allowed the appeal filed by the third respondent-union in so far as the amendment sought for in respect of Standing order 12 (b) is concerned, while allowing the said amendment, the appellate authority considered the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court to the effect that when a Standing Order is formulated with reference to a matter falling outside the items enumerated in the schedule to the Act, the Certifies such Standing Order and that such certification could, therefore, be null and void and of no effect. The appellate authority also observed that in the instant case, Certified Standing Order 12 (b) deals in part with the matters falling outside the schedule to the Act and consequently, the third respondent-union is entitled to delete a portion of Standing Order 12 (b) and in absence of any legal bar to such a request, the same cannot be denied to the third respondent-union and therefore, held that in the Standing Order 12 (b), the words. "from one department or section to another , or from this works to other units under the Manager or the Head Officer and vice versa". should be ordered to be deleted. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition of the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the aforesaid order of the appellate authority.

(2.) SRI. S. Jayaraman , learned counsel for the petitioner, represents that after the amendment of Section4 of the Act, the Certifying Officer has jurisdiction to consider the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed amendment, even though if it is not included as one of the items to the schedule to the Act, in respect of which the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Rohtak and Hissar Districts electric Supply Company Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1966-II-LLJ-330), wherein it is held that the amendment to S. 4 of the Act enables the Certifying officer to adjudicate upon the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed standing Order, and that the Jurisdiction of the certifying authorities has become very much wider and the scope of the enquiry has also become correspondingly wider. Replying upon the said observation, learned counsel for the petitioner represents that the transfer from one unit to another unit, etc. , is incidental and consequently, the fairness and reasonableness of transfer should be considered and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.