Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal by Electricity Distribution Company in Standing Orders Amendment Dispute. Discriminatory Amendments Introducing Different Leave and Holiday Rules for Existing and New Employees Held Unfair and Unreasonable Under Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.

Appeal before Supreme Court against dismissal of appeal by appellate authority which upheld refusal by Certifying Officer to certify proposed amendments to certified Standing Orders relating to holidays and leave.

Appellant sought to set aside the orders of the Certifying Officer and appellate authority and to obtain certification of the proposed amended Standing Orders.

Appellant claimed urgent need for increased production and supply of electrical energy required different holiday and leave rules for future entrants; it had already introduced such rules for new entrants from 1 October 1960 and sought to regularise them under the Act.

Certifying Officer, Madras negatived the proposed amendments; the appellate authority dismissed the appeal; the Labour Court, Coimbatore (C.S.O. Appeal No. 1 of 1962) passed order dated 9 April 1963 from which special leave was granted.

Whether the proposed amendments to Standing Orders 5(b) and 10(a) were fair and reasonable. Whether the Certifying Officer and appellate authority had jurisdiction to consider fairness and reasonableness and to refuse certification of the proposed amendments. Whether introducing different rules for employees appointed before and after a specified date amounts to impermissible discrimination under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.

For appellant: The proposed amendments were fair and reasonable as they applied only to future entrants and were needed for increased production and supply of electrical energy; the certifying authorities erred in law in not certifying them. For respondents: The proposed change was unfair and unreasonable, would introduce discrimination between one set of employees and another working under the same employer, and would cause industrial unrest and disharmony.

The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 requires that matters specified in the Schedule be covered by uniform Standing Orders applicable to all workmen in an industrial establishment. The Certifying Officer and appellate authority have jurisdiction to consider fairness and reasonableness of Standing Orders. Amendments that introduce different rules for existing and new employees based solely on date of joining are unfair, unreasonable, and contrary to the object of the Act.

The Act provides a self contained code and the Certifying Officer is given the power to consider questions of fairness and reasonableness as well as other questions indicated by s. 4(a) and (b). It is clear from the provisions of the Act requiring industrial establishments to have their Standing Orders certified that matters specified in the Schedule to the Act should be covered by uniform Standing Orders applicable to all workmen employed in an industrial establishment. the proposed change was unfair and unreasonable, and it was also argued that it would introduce discrimination between one set of employees and another working under the same employer, and that would naturally cause industrial unrest and disharmony.

On 6 October 1960, appellant applied to Certifying Officer, Madras, for amendment of certified Standing Orders 5(b) and 10(a). The Certifying Officer negatived the proposed amendments. Appellant appealed to the appellate authority (Labour Court, Coimbatore) which dismissed the appeal on 9 April 1963. Appellant then obtained special leave and filed Civil Appeal No. 305 of 1964 before the Supreme Court.

• Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946: Sections 2(f), 2(g), 3, 3(1), 4, 4(a), 4(b), 5, 6, 7, 10(2), 13A, 15
• Indian Electricity Act, 1910:
• Factories Act, 1948:
• Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
• Madras Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1958:
• Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947: