MANAGEMENT SHAHDARA DELHI SAHARANPUR LIGHT RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED Vs. S S RAILWAY WORKERS UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by special leave, is by the employer and raises the question as to the scope of Section 10(2) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 20 of 1946, as amended by Act 36 of 1956 (referred to hereinafter as the Act.)

(2.) The Standing Orders of the Appellant-company were certified on August 7, 1962 by the Regional Labour Commissioner, Central, under Section 4 of the Act. Both the company and the workmen filed appeals against the said order which were disposed of by the Appellate Authority under Section 6. Sometime thereafter the respondent-union applied for certain modifications, some of which were certified by the Regional Labour Commissioner by his order dated December 28, 1963. The Appellant-company filed an appeal against the said order which was disposed of by the Chief Labour Commissioner in April 1964. On April, 25, 1965 the respondent union made a further application for modifications. The Regional Labour Commissioner by his order dated September 2, 1965 allowed certain modifications but rejected the rest. The union thereupon appealed against the said order. After hearing the parties the Chief Labour Commissioner passed his impugned order dated October 27, 1967 ordering certification of certain modifications. Though the Appellant-company objected at first to all the modifications, Counsel pressed the appeal in respect of four modifications only. The first modification challenged is in Standing Order 9, clause (a) which, as unamended, read as follows:

(3.) Counsel for the company challenged the impugned order in its two facets:the scope of the power of modification under Section 10 (2), and on merits on the ground that the modifications did not stand the test of reasonableness and fairness. On the first question his contention was that the jurisdiction an powers of the authorities under the Act to certify modifications of the existing Standing Orders are limited to cases where a change of circumstances is established. In the course of his argument, counsel, however, qualified the contention by conceding that if at the time of the last certification certain circumstances were, for one reason or the other, omitted from consideration they would constitute a valid reason for modification and the modification would be granted even though in such a case a change of cirumstances has not occurred. He next contended that in any case though Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not apply, principles analogous to res judicata would apply to an application for modification unless such application is occasioned by new circumstances having arisen or is based on new facts. Briefly, the argument was that the object of the Act is to have conditions of service of workmen in an establishment defined with precision, and therefore, to have standing orders dealing with such conditions certified. For industrial harmony and peace it is necessary, that those conditions are stable and do not remain undefined or fluctuating. In pursuance of this object the Act confers finality to such certified standing orders or modifications thereof under S. 6. The contention was that if modifications were allowed without any restraint, there would be multiple applications specially as individual workmen have been given the right to apply for modifications. Therefore, the word 'final' in Section 6, it was argued, must be so read as to mean that an application for modification under section 10 (2) can only be maintainable if it is justified on the ground of a change of circumstances having occurred after the last certification, which of course, according to the concession made by counsel, also would include cases where certain circumstances were not taken into account at the time of the last certification.