Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5872 1997
PETITIONER:
CALCUTTA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPN. LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SHEW KR. SINGH & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/11/2000
BENCH:
S R Babu,, S N Variava
JUDGMENT:
L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
J U D G M E N T
RAJENDRA BABU, J. :
This appeal is filed against the orders made by the
High Court either by the learned Single Judge or by the
Division Bench of the High Court on an appeal thereto
declining to interfere with an adjudication by the Tribunal
under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946
[hereinafter referred to as the Act] either by the learned
Single Judge or by the Division Bench of the High Court on
an appeal thereto. Section 13-A of the Act provides that if
any question arises as to the application or interpretation
of a standing order any employer or workman or a trade union
or other representative body of workmen may refer the
question to any one of the Labour Courts and the Labour
Court to which such question is referred shall, after giving
opportunity to the parties, decide the same, which shall be
final and binding on the parties. Standing Order 15(x) of
the Certified Standing Order of 1953 of the appellant
provides that taking intoxicants or noxious drugs while on
duty or being under their influence when reporting for duty,
would amount to misconduct entailing dismissal and Standing
Order 15(b) provides that no order of dismissal or
suspension for more than a week or of stoppage of increment
shall be made until an enquiry has been held to investigate
the circumstances of the case and to decide what offence or
offences were committed. The accused workman shall have the
right to be present at the enquiry and to produce any
witness in his defence. Detailed and elaborate provisions
have been made as to composition of the enquiry committee,
report to be made and action to be taken thereon. One
Sushil Kumar Mukherjee had been dismissed invoking the
aforesaid provisions without holding an enquiry. However,
that matter became final as the Labour Court and the High
Court dismissed the order made therein. In those
circumstances, an application was filed before the Tribunal
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
under the Act seeking interpretation as to the true effect
of these provisions. The contention put forth on behalf of
the appellant is that there is no present dispute or
controversy between the parties and that what led respondent
No.1 to file his application is an apprehension in his mind
that unless there is a proper interpretation of clause 15 of
the Certified Standing Order of 1953, the management is
likely to victimise the workmen. The Tribunal rejected this
contention. The High Court held that the apprehension of
the applicant-respondent No.1 cannot be stated to be as one
purely imaginary not based on facts and merely an
apprehension in his mind. His claim for interpretation of
clause 15 is that there was action taken invoking the
provisions of clause 15 of the Certified Standing Order of
1953 in a particular manner, correctness of which was put in
issue for interpretation and that such a matter cannot be
stated to be one not covered by Section 13-A of the Act.
The view taken by the High Court, therefore, does not call
for any interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
No costs.