LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR-CUM CERTIFYING OFFICER PUDUCHERRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a Trade Union. THE petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition to quash the Certified Standing Orders. THE Certification was done by the Certifying Officer in the Certification dated 2.2.2010. THE Draft Standing Orders were submitted by the management of Larsen and Toubro Limited, ECC Division (Engineering, Construction and Contracts) Transmission Line Tower and Rolling Mill Units in Puducherry. For curious reasons, the petitioner did not make the management as a party even though it is a necessary and proper party to the Writ Petition. THE Draft Standing Orders submitted by the said management was taken on file as Standing Order No.3 of 2010. Notice was ordered to various Unions representing the workmen of the said management.

(2.) IT is seen from the records that the petitioner Union gave an objection seeking for deletion and addition of certification clause in the Standing Order. IT is claimed that the objections were given on 1.2.2010, which are evidenced in the typed set. Notwithstanding the objections raised and also the suggestions made, it is the stand of the union that the certifying authority did not adopt the procedure conforming to Section 5(2) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The primary objection of the petitioner union was that the draft Standing Order submitted by the management contained the provisions, which are outside the schedule and the Model Standing Order. Therefore, the Certifying Officer lacks power to certify such Standing Orders. They also submitted that the power under section 5(2) involves not merely calling for amendments or suggestions but an effective opportunity of being heard must be given to the Union and it is virtually the adjudication on the reasonableness of the Standing Orders. Therefore, the Certifying Officer has power not only to see whether the Standing Orders are conformed to the provisions of the Standing Orders Act and the Rules framed thereunder but also go into the question of reasonableness. In the present case, the respondent appeared to have acted like a rubber stamp of the management. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.

(3.) IN the present case, it is stated that the Standing Orders have been certified. The question of appeal will not arise. The said submission is oblivious of the fact that Section 6 of the INdustrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 had underwent an amendment by Central Act 18 of 1982 dated 17.5.1982. By the said amendment, if any person, whether he is an employer, workman or trade union or either prescribed representatives of the workmen, is aggrieved by the order of the certified Standing Orders under section 5(2) of the Act, he can file an appeal. IN effect, the locus standi of the aggrieved person has been widened by the Central Act 18 of 1982, which has come into force on 17.5.1982. The said amendment was not available before the Allahabad High Court because the said judgment was rendered before that amendment.