9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the terms of a special contract between an employee and employer can prevail over the standing orders of the company. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Conflict Between Special Contract and Standing Orders: The primary issue addressed in this judgment is the conflict between the terms of a special contract of service and the standing orders of the company. The court was tasked with determining which would prevail in the event of such a conflict. The appellant was terminated from his position based on a special contract, but the Labour Court found this termination unjustified as it did not comply with the standing orders. The company argued that the special contract should prevail over the standing orders. 2. Legal Framework and Interpretation: The court examined the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, which requires employers to define employment conditions with sufficient precision and make them known to employees. The court emphasized that the standing orders are meant to be binding rules, providing a statutory framework for employment conditions. Sections 1, 2(g), 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 13A of the Act were scrutinized to underline the mandatory nature of standing orders. The court highlighted that these orders are not merely contractual but have the force of law, and any modification must follow the statutory procedure. 3. Judicial Precedents: Several Supreme Court decisions were cited to support the binding nature of standing orders. In Guest, Keen, Williams (Private), Ltd. v. P.J. Sterling, the Supreme Court assumed that employers and employees could not escape the provisions of standing orders outside statutory provisions. Similarly, in Bagalket Cement Co. Ltd. v. B.K. Pathan and Ors., the court emphasized that the standing orders constitute statutory terms of employment. The court also referenced the Gujarat High Court's decision in Tata Chemicals, Ltd. and Ors. v. Kailash C. Adhuaryu, which held that standing orders are binding and cannot be overridden by special contracts. 4. Statutory Nature of Standing Orders: The court concluded that standing orders, once certified, become statutory rules governing the relationship between employers and employees. They cannot be modified or bypassed by special agreements unless done in accordance with the Act's provisions. This ensures a uniform and fair application of employment conditions, preventing arbitrary deviations. 5. Principle of Law Over Contract: The court reiterated the principle that statutory provisions override contractual agreements. It stated that there is no freedom to contract out of statutory terms, and any contract conflicting with standing orders would be invalid under Section 23 of the Contract Act, which invalidates agreements that defeat the provisions of any law. Conclusion: The court concluded that the terms of a standing order would prevail over the terms of a contract that conflicts with the standing order. This ensures that the statutory framework provided by the standing orders remains intact and enforceable, promoting fairness and consistency in employment conditions.
|
