SINDRI WORKERS UNION Vs. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the petitioner is a registered trade union, called the Sindri Workers' Union, which is constituted of workers of the Sindri Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited, which is a private limited company with its registered office at Sindri in the district of Manbhum. Under Sec. 3 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1940 (Act XX of 1946), the Sindri fertilizers and Chemicals Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) submitted to the Labour Commissioner of Bihar at Patna the draft standing orders for the purpose of certification under the Act. Under Sec. 5(1) of the Act the Labour Commissioner of Bihar served a copy of the draft standing orders on the petitioner. In the proceedings for certification the petitioner objected that the Labour Commissioner of Bihar was not the proper authority to certify the standing orders of the company. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Regional Labour Commissioner of the Union of India, whose office was at Dhanbad, was the proper certifying officer. The Labour Commissioner, Bihar, did not consider the objection raised by the petitioner but certified the draft standing orders of the company by his order dated 24 -1 -1955. The petitioner took the matter in appeal before the appellate authority for standing orders, namely, respondent No. 2, and the objection taken in appeal was that the Commissioner of Labour, Bihar, was not the proper certifying officer for landing orders of the company under Act XX of 1946. The objection was overruled by respondent No. 2 and the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by his order dated 4 -7 -1956, and it was held by respondent No. 2 that the appropriate Government under Section 2(c) of the Act was the Government of Bihar and, therefore, the Commissioner of Labour, Bihar, had jurisdiction to certify standing orders. In these circumstances the petitioner has obtained a rule from the High Court calling upon the respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of certiorari under Art. 226 of the Constitution should not be issued for quashing the order of the Labour Commissioner, Bihar, dated 24 -1 -1955, certifying the draft standing orders, and also the order of the appellate authority, dated 4 -7 -1956. Cause has been shown in this case by the learned Government Advocate on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) IT is necessary at this stage to set out the relevant statutory provisions. Section 2(b) of Act XX of 1946 is in the following terms : "2. (b) 'Appropriate Government' means in respect of industrial establishments under the control of the Central Government or a Railway Administration or in a major port, mine or oilfield, the Central Government, and in all other case the State Government." Section 2(c) defines : " 'Certifying Officer' as 'the Labour Commissioner wherever he exists or in his absence an officer appointed by the appropriate Government by notification in the official Gazette to exercise in such area as may be specified in the notification, the functions of a Certifying Officer under this Act." Section 2(a) states as follows : "2. (a) 'Appellate Authority' means an Industrial Court, wherever it exists or in its absence an authority appointed by the appropriate Government by notification in the official Gazette to exercise in such area as may be specified in the notification, the functions of an appellate authority under this Act." Section 3 of the Act provides for submission of draft standing orders to the certifying officer. Section 3 reads as follows : "3. Submission of draft standing orders : (1) Within six months from the date on which this Act becomes applicable to an industrial establishment, the employer shall submit to the Certifying Officer five copies of the draft standing orders proposed by him for adoption in his industrial establishment, (2) Provision shall be made in such draft for every matter set out in the Schedule which may be applicable to the industrial establishment, and where model standing orders have been prescribed, shall, so far as is practicable, in conformity with such model. (3) The draft standing orders submitted under this section shall be accompanied by a statement giving prescribed particulars of the workmen employed in the industrial establishment including the name of the trade union, if any, to which they belong. (4) Subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, a group of employers in similar industrial establishments may submit a joint draft of standing orders under this section." Section 5 relates to certification of standing orders and reads as follows : "'5. Certification of standing orders : (1) On receipt of the draft under Section 3, the Certifying Officer shall forward a copy thereof to the trade union, if any, of the workmen, or where there in no such trade union, to the workmen in such manner as may be prescribed, together with a notice in the prescribed form requiring objections, if any, which the workmen may desire to make to the draft standing, orders to be submitted to him within fifteen days from the receipt of the notice. (2) After giving the employer and the trade union or such other representatives of the workmen as may be prescribed an opportunity of being heard, the Certifying Officer shall decide whether or not any modification of or addition to the draft submitted by the employer is necessary to render the draft standing orders certifiable under this Act, and shall make an order in writing accordingly. (3) The Certifying Officer shall thereupon certify the draft standing orders, after making any modifications therein which his order under Sub -Section (2) may require, and shall within seven days thereafter send copies of the certified standing orders authenticated in the prescribed manner and of his order under Sub -Section (2) to the employer and to the trade union or other prescribed representatives of the workmen." Section 6 deals with appeals and states as follows : "6. Appeals. (1) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Certifying Officer under Sub -S. (2) of Sec. 5 may, within twenty -one days from the date on which copies are sent under Sub -Section (3) of that section, appeal to the appellate authority, and the appellate authority whose decision shall be final, shall by order in writing confirm the standing orders either in the form certified by the Certifying Officer or after amending the said standing orders by such modifications thereof or additions thereto as it thinks necessary to render the standing orders certifiable under this Act. 2. The Appellate Authority shall, within seven days of its order under Sub -Section (1), send copies thereof to the Certifying Officer, to the employer and to the trade union or other prescribed representatives of the workmen, accompanied, unless it has confirmed without amendment the standing Orders as certified by the Certifying Officer, by copies of the standing orders as certified by it and authenticated in the prescribed manner."

(3.) AS a matter of law it does not also make any difference that the President holds the majority of shares in his name or that the authority to issue directives or the authority to appoint or remove Directors is vested in the President of India and not expressly in the Central Government by name.In this connection Art. 77 and Arts 298 and 299 of the Constitution are important. Article 77 provides that "all executive action of the Government of India shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the President." Article 298 provides that "the executive power of the Union and of each State shall extend to the carrying on of any trade or business and to the acquisition, holding and disposal of property and the making contracts for any purpose." Article 299 also provides that "all contracts made in the exercise of the executive power of the Union or of a State shall be expressed to be made by the President, or by the Governor of the State, as the case may be, and all such contracts and all assurances of property made in the exercise of that power shall be executed on behalf of the President or the Governor by such persons and in such manner as he may direct or authorise." Reading, therefore, the Articles of Association of the Company along with these constitutional provisions it is clear that the industrial establishment in this case is under the control of the Central Government within the meaning of Sec. 2(b) of Act XX of 1946, and the Labour Commissioner of Bihar has no jurisdiction to certify the draft standing orders of the Company under Sec. 5 of the same Act. I, therefore, hold that a writ in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution must be issued for quashing the order of the Labour Commissioner of Bihar, dated 24 -1 -1955, and also the order of respondent No. 2, namely, the appellate authority for standing orders, dated 4 -7 -1956. I would accordingly allow the application with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 200/ -.