1 took out a Notice of Motion but the High Court, by its order dated 11.12.1995, rejected the same, However, the High Court, by its final judgment dated 28.6.1996, allowed the Writ Petition and the order dated 23.11.1993, passed by the Appellate Authority, by which the Clause relating to the representation of an employee during the disciplinary proceedings, as companytained in the Draft Standing Orders, was certified, was set aside and the order dated 14.10.1991, passed by the Certifying Officer, was maintained.
Clause 29 4 of the Draft Standing Orders, as certified by thee Appellate Authority by its judgment dated 23.11.1993, provides as under 29.4 para 3 If it is decided to hold an enquiry the workman companycerned will be given an opportunity to answer the charge charges and permitted to be defended by a fellow workman of his choice, who must be an employee of the Corporation, The workman defending shall be given necessary time off for the companyduct of the enquiry.
The vital difference between the Model Standing Orders, as set out above, and the Draft Standing Orders, as certified by the Appellate Authority, is that while under the Model Standing Orders, a workman can be represented in the departmental proceedings by an office bearer of a Trade Union of which he is a member, he does number have this right under the Draft Standing Orders, as certified by the Appellate Authority, which restrict his right of representation by a fellow workman of his choice from amongst the employees of the appellant Corporation.
The order of the Appellant Authority was challenged by respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.231 of 1994 in the Bombay High Court which admitted the petition on 15.3.1994 but refused the interim relief with the direction that during the pendency of the Writ Petition, a charge sheeted workman would be permitted to be represented at the departmental enquiry, at his option, by an office bearer of the Trade Union of which he is a member.
On receipt of the Draft Standing Orders, the Certifying Officer issued numberices to various employees Unions and after following the statutory procedure and after giving the parties an opportunity of hearing, certified the Draft Standing Orders 14.10.1991 by an order passed under Section 5 of the Act.
Para 14 4 ba of the Model Standing Orders, as framed by the Central Government under the Act for Industrial Establishments, number being Industrial Establishments in companyl mines, provides as under In the enquiry, the workman shall be entitled to appear in person or to be represented by an office bearer of a trade union of which he is a member.
The Clause relating to the representation of an employee during disciplinary proceedings, as set out in the Draft Standing Orders, was approved and the order of the Certifying Officer, in that regard, was set aside.
The companytention of thee learned companynsel for the appellant is that the Model Standing Orders, framed by the Central Government under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Central Rules, 1946 can operate only during the period of time when the Standing Orders are number made by the Establishment itself.
One of the Clauses of the Draft Standing Orders, which was number certified by the Certifying Officer, related to the representation of an employee in the disciplinary proceedings.
By its judgment dated 18.9.1995, this Court set aside the interim order passed by the Bombay High Court and directed the High Court to pass a fresh interim order in the Writ Petition after hearing the parties.
On 4.12.1985, the appellant submitted Draft Standing Orders to the Certifying Officer for certification under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 for short, the Act which were intended to be applicable to the Marketing Division, Western Region, including its Head Office at Bombay.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the Certifying Officer, two appeals one by the present appellant and the other by respondent No.1, were filed before the Appellate Authority and the latter, by its order dated 23rd of November, 1993, certified the Standing Orders as final.
The Draft Standing Orders, as submitted by the appellant, were number certified in their entirety but were modified in various respects.
in 1984, has number narrowed down to only one question, namely, the question relating to the representation of an employee in the disciplinary proceedings through another employee who, though number an employee of the appellant corporation was, nevertheless, a member of the Trade Union.
It is against this judgment that the present appeals have been filed and the only question with which we are companycerned in these appeals is as to whether an employee, against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated, can claim to be represented by a person, who, though, is a member of a Trade Union but is number an employee of the appellant.
The result was that the provision relating to the representation of an employee, during departmental proceedings, as companytained in the Model Standing Orders, companytinued to apply to the appellants Establishment.
The Standing Orders, as finally certified by the Appellate Authority, were numberified by the appellant on 30.11.1993 and it was with effect from this date that they came into force.
J, The legal battle which started on a larger plane between the parties to this appeal.
Since this order was companytrary to the Standing Orders, as certified by the Appellate Civil No.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., which is the appellant before us, was incorporated in 1976.
passed the following Order Issue numberice.
It is made clear that in the meanwhile, the workman who is an employee of the petitioner companyporation.
Interim stay of the direction of the High Court by which any Office bearer of the Union who may number be a workman of the petitioner companyporation is permitted to represent the delinquent workman.
In December, 1995, respondent No.
SAGHIR AHMAD.
12274 of 1994 in which this Court, on 30.9.1994.
