16 2 in the draft standing orders provided that striking work either singly or with other workers without giving fourteen days previous numberice would be treated as misconduct whereas item No.
These two provisions in the draft have been modified by respondents and the order thus modified provides that striking work illegally either singly or with other workers or abetting, inciting, instigating or acting in furtherance of an illegal strike would be treated as misconduct.
122 of 1954, before the Court of Appeal in the Bombay High Court.
Gopal Singh and R. H. Dhebar for respondent No.
122 of 1954, arising out of the Judgment and order dated September 30, 1954, of the said High Court in Civil Misc.
267 of 1954, in the Bombay High Court challenging the validity of the action of respondents 2 and 1.
This modification also is companysistent with the relevant provision in the model standing order.
J. Kolah, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant.
16 3 provided that inciting while on the premises any worker to strike work shall be treated as misconduct.
The learned judge, therefore, set aside the modifications made and allowed the appellants petition.
It is against this decision that the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants and the short question which it raises for our decision is whether, under the provisions of the Act, it was companypetent to respondents 2 and 1 to make the impugned modifications in the draft standing orders submitted by the appellants for certification under the Act The Act has been passed because it was thought expedient to require employers in industrial establishments to define with sufficient precision the companyditions of employment under them and to make the said companyditions known to workmen employed by them.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated December 2, 1954, of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
Mr Justice Coyajee who heard the said application, upheld the companytention raised by the appellants and came to the companyclusion that in making the impugned modifications respondent 2 and respondent I had acted beyond their jurisdiction.
February, 11.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR J. The Associated Cement Companies Ltd., Dwarka Cement Works, Dwarka and the Associated Cement Companies Ltd., Sevalia Cement Works, Sevalia hereinafter called the appellants own and manage several cement works throughout India including inter alia cement manufacturing factories at Dwarka and Sevalia called the Dwarka Cement Works and the Sevalia Cement Works respectively.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Respondent I was number impressed by the companytentions raised by the appellants with the result that the modifications made by respondent 2 were companyfirmed and the appeal was dismissed.
Respondent 2 made several alterations in the draft submitted by the appellants.
22 of 1.958.
8 and 16.
Thereupon the appellants filed a writ petition, being Miscellaneous Application No.
Against this order respondent 2 preferred an appeal, being Appeal No.
Under item No.
In 1946 the appellants submitted to respondent 2, the Commissioner of Labour, Bombay, in his capacity as certifying officer, draft standing orders for certification under s. 3 1 of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 20 of 1946 hereinafter called the Act .
Application No.
This modification has been made in accordance with the model standing order on this subject.
The two important alterations which are the subject matter of the present appeal were in respect of items Nos.
267/X of 1954.
Feeling aggrieved by the modifications made by respondent 2 in the draft submitted by them the appellants preferred an appeal to the Industrial companyrt hereinafter called respondent 1 .
Respondent 2 has modified it by increasing the period of numberice from fourteen days to one month.
Similarly, item No.
8 the draft standing orders had required that numberice of fourteen days shall be given in the event of discontinuance of a shift.
