9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Violation of standing orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. 2. Entitlement to relief under article 226 of the Constitution for employees of a company registered under the Companies Act. Analysis: 1. The judgment revolves around the suspension and subsequent disciplinary action against an employee of a government undertaking, Hindusthan Cables Limited, under the Companies Act, 1956. The employee was accused of insubordination, disobedience, negligence of work, habitual indiscipline, and misbehavior. The petitioner challenged the disciplinary actions on the grounds of violation of clause 14(a) of the standing orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, and the contravention of natural justice implied in the said clause. The respondent argued that relief under article 226 of the Constitution is not available for employees of a company registered under the Companies Act. The court emphasized that employees of such companies do not hold civil posts under the Union or State, precluding them from the protection of article 311 of the Constitution. 2. The judgment delves into the legal character of standing orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. It establishes that certified standing orders have the force of law and can be enforced like statutory instruments. Despite this, the court declined to grant relief under article 226 of the Constitution to the petitioner, citing that the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act provides an adequate remedy for such situations. The introduction of section 13A through an amendment in 1956 mandated that questions regarding the application or interpretation of standing orders be referred to a Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court highlighted that employees could raise industrial disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act for contravention of standing orders. Therefore, the petitioner's direct approach to the court without exhausting alternative remedies hindered the grant of relief under article 226 of the Constitution. The judgment concludes by discharging the rule without costs, emphasizing that it does not signify a decision on the merits of the petitioner's case.
|
