SAMTEL WORKERS UNION Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by Samtel Workers Union (BMS), Parwanoo ("Union", for short), through its Secretary, for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside Certified Standing Orders, if any, of Samtel India Limited, Solan, respondent No. 3 herein ("Company", for short). A prayer is also made to direct respondent No.3-Company to submit draft Standing Orders in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Himachal Pradesh Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). A further prayer is made restraining the third respondent Company from implementing or giving effect to order passed by it on the basis of unlawful Standing Orders and by restoring the rights of the members of the petitioner-Union declaring the action taken by the Company as illegal, unlawful and ultra vires.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that it is a Union duly registered on May 25, 1998 under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. It was alleged that without observing the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, an illegal lock out was declared by the Company. The petitioner - Union was therefore constrained to approach this Court by filing CWP No. 106 of 2000. It may be stated that though the allegation of the petitioner was that the lock out effected by the Company was illegal and contrary to law, respondent No. 3 Company was not made party-respondent in the petition. According to the petitioner, the Company subsequently realised that the lock-out declared by it was illegal and it was, therefore, lifted. Be that as it may, the said petition is still pending and hence we do not wish to enter into correctness or otherwise of the allegations levelled in the said petition.

(3.) It is averred by the petitioner that after the unjustified lock out was lifted by the Company, the members of the petitioner Union reported for work on March 25, 2000. But the Company did not allow them to enter. It is further alleged that under the garb of Certified Standing Orders, negative approach was adopted by the company and certain workers were transferred or their services terminated. All those steps were taken by way of victimsation. The petitioner-Union was never informed about so called Standing Orders. Draft Standing Orders were never sent to the Union, nor their view point was sought nor they were called upon to submit their objections, if any, in the matter and respondent No. 3 Company, in collusion with respondent No. 2, Labour Commissioner, got Draft Standing Orders certified. The said action was clearly illegal, improper, unlawful and ultra vires. The petitioner, therefore, was constrained to approach this Court by invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.