WORKMEN OF BHUPENDRA CEMENT WORKS Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN 1960 the Bhupendra Cement Works, Surajpur, respondent 2 in this writ petition (hereinafter referred to as the employer), submitted draft standing orders under Section 3 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 20 of 1946, hereinafter called the Act, to the Labour Commissioner, Punjab, in his capacity as certifying officer for certification under Section 3 (1) of the Act. The certifying officer made certain alterations and amendments in the draft standing orders and certified them after such amendments by his order under Section 5 of the Act, dated 11 October 1960. The employer preferred an appeal against the above said order of the certifying officer dated 11 October 1960 to the industrial tribunal, Punjab, under Section 6 of the Act. The appellate authority remanded the case to the certifying officer with a direction to give reasons in support of the changes or amendments made by him in the draft standing orders as submitted by the employer. By a detailed order dated 5 May 1962 (copy annexure D to the writ petition) the certifying officer gave reasons in support of the changes or modifications effected by him in the draft standing orders. On the receipt of the said memorandum of reasons dated 5 May 1962 the appeal of the employer was revived and decided on merits. By order dated 30 July 1962 the appellate authority amended the draft standing orders as certified by the certifying officer in respect of Clauses 3 (2) (a), 9 (1) (c), 9 (5), 20 (11), 22 (7) and 24 of the standing orders. Out of the abovementioned clauses the amendments in Clauses 3 (2) (a), 22 (7) and 24, were by agreement of the parties, and are therefore, not being questioned in these proceedings. A copy of the order of the appellate authority has been filed as annexure E to the writ petition. The impugned alterations effected by the appellate authority, which are the subject-matter of the present writ petition, were in respect of items 9 (1) (c) and 9 (5) (which can be taken up together) and In Clause 20 (ii) of the standing orders.

(2.) I will first take up the objection raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners (the employers) to the amendment effected in Clause 9 (1) (c ).

(3.) THE corresponding issue in the draft standing orders submitted by the employer (copy annexure A to the writ petition) is Clause 9 (1) (d) and reads as follows:-On re-starting a shift, notice thereof shall be given, and the workers discharged as a result of discontinuance of the shift shall, if they present themselves within seven days of the giving of the notice, be given preference for employment according to the length of their service. However, this rule shall not apply to workers with a history of past misdemeanour, misconduct or inefficiency, punished, tolerated or condoned.