UNIPRES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENT STANDING ORDERS ACT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Trade Union duly registered under the Trade Unions Act. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the first respondent in his proceedings bearing Ref. No. AA/4522/2013 dated 30.04.2014 proceeding with the process of certification of draft standing orders submitted by the second respondent management without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to make its objections in the draft standing order submitted by the first respondent. He submits that the second respondent is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act and is engaged in the business of manufacturing Automobile Components. The second respondent has a factory at RNS -6, SIPCOT Industrial Growth Center, Oragadam, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. In the said factory more than 280 workers are employed. He submits that all the workers of the said factory are members of the petitioner union. The petitioner union is the only union operating in the factory of the second respondent and is a recognized union.

(2.) THE petitioner further submits that the second respondent management by its letter dated 25.10.2013 submitted a draft standing order for certification under the provisions of the Industrial Establishment Standing Orders Act. Thereafter, the first respondent by its letter dated 31.10.2013 asked the petitioner to submits its objections if any within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter. They had been appearing before the first respondent in the proceedings and the same was adjourned to 08.01.2014. He submits that since the clauses included in the draft standing orders are complicated and the workers wanted to get legal opinion and also wanted the union to be represented by a legal professional. The draft Standing Orders submitted by the management is not in conformity with the model standing orders. Therefore, they engaged a lawyer to put forth their objections on 09.04.2014. He submits that they were advised by their counsel to have discussion with all the workers and analyze the possibilities and practical difficulties with regard to the draft standing orders apart from its legality. Therefore, a month time was sought by the petitioner. However, the proceedings were adjourned to 16.04.2014, 23.04.2014 and thereafter to 30.04.2014.

(3.) THE petitioner further submits that the first respondent failed to afford reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to put forth its legal objections in writing as well as orally and had in an undue haste proceeded to proceed with certification of the draft standing orders submitted by the second respondent. Therefore, the order of the second respondent is vitiated on the ground of violation of Principles of Natural Justice. The first respondent should have seen that no prejudice would have been caused to the second respondent in adjourning the proceedings by two weeks. He submits that they have not been afforded reasonable opportunity to submit their objections in writing as well as orally. He submits that they will be put to irreparable loss and hardship if the first respondent certifies the draft standing orders without hearing them. He submits that no other alternative efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner except to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition.