D.K.SETH, J. - (1.) In this writ petition the following prayers have been made: a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to show cause as to why the copy of the certified standing order, as claimed by the Company should not be supplied to the petitioner; b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to withdraw and/or rescind and/or cancel the existing Private Service Rules entirely inconsistent with the model standing orders; c) A writ in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to transmit and/or produce, the certified standing order if any before this Hon'ble Court.
(2.) In the pleadings the writ petitioners have alleged that though standing orders have since been framed for the working journalists under the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955 but no standing order, which is mandatory under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, have been framed for the non-journalists employees, viz: the petitioners. A writ petition No. 23030 (W) of 1998 was moved by one Aroni Mukhopadhyay, a suspended employee of the respondent, The said petition was disposed of by this Court on January 12, 1999 by directing the respondents to hand over a copy of the standing order in terms of the prayer made in the said writ petition. An appeal being MAT No. 209 of 1999 against the said decision was filed by said Aroni Mukhopadhyay. The said appeal was disposed of by the Division Bench on March 25, 1999 as not maintainable on the ground that rights of the parties to the lis was not determined by the said order. It is now alleged that the standing order which has since been handed over by the respondents lacks many essential ingredients and does not conform to the model standing order. The copy of the standing order appears to be a true copy but not a certified standing order. At best it is a private service rules which is being lodged for being certified as certified standing order under the provisions of the 1946 Act.
(3.) The respondents State had filed an affidavit of facts. In the said affidavit the said respondent has disclosed the "in spite of best efforts made in the office, nothing could be traced in the matter of a certified standing orders for Non-Journalists Employees of the Statesman Ltd., if any, in this office" that "no Draft Standing Orders for the Non-Journalists Employees of the Statesman Ltd., was submitted by the said company for certification after coming into force of the Working Journalists and Other Newspapers Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (45 of 1955) as it appears from the records available in this office." The State Government had disputed the alleged standing order to be a certified one.;