MAY AND BAKAR LTD Vs. KISHORE JAIKRISHANDAS ICHAPORIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1st respondent was employed by the appellant. On 28th April 1983 he was issued with a charge-sheet which alleged that he had committed some misconduct. On the same day he was suspended from service. A domestic enquiry was held. On 19th July, 1984 the 1st respondent was discharged from service. The appellant paid to the 1st respondent suspension allowance for the period of the suspension on the basis of the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders applicable to the appellant's industrial establishment.

(2.) THE 1st respondent filed an application before the Labour Court under Section 13-A of the industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Section 13-A empowers the Labour Court to decide questions relating to the application or interpretation of a Standing Order certified under the Act. It was the 1st respondent's contention that he was entitled to subsistence allowance under the provisions of the Model Standing Orders, as then amended, under the bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959. It was contended on behalf of the appellant in reply that the subsistence allowance which the 1st respondent was entitled to was regulated by the Certified Standing Orders and in any event, by Section 10-A (1) of the Act. The labour Court came to the conclusion that unless the Model Standing orders had been incorporated in the Certified Standing Orders applicable to the Industrial Establishment of the appellant, the 1st respondent could not take the benefit of the same. The concerned provision of the Model Standing Orders did not override the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders unless the proper procedure had been followed. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that, in these circumstances, it had no jurisdiction to deal with the dispute that was raised and it dismissed the 1st respondent's application.

(3.) THE 1st respondent filed the writ petition to impugn the order of the Labour Court. The learned single Judge was of the view that the concerned provision of the Model Standing Orders being more beneficial than the provisions of Section 10-A, the former would prevail. He expressed the view that the normal rule should be that a Model Standing Order should prevail over the Certified Standing Orders but felt it unnecessary to go into the question. By the order under appeal he held the 1st respondent to be entitled to the payment of subsistence allowance under the concerned provision of the Model Standing Orders.