Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Foundation Brake Kamgar Sanghatna, a trade union, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 26th February 2016 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Jalgaon in Appeal (IESO) No.1 of 2015. The appeal was filed by the respondent, M/s Foundation Brake Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., seeking quashment of the order dated 21.8.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Certifying Officer) under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The Certifying Officer had allowed the application of the petitioner union and extended the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years. The Industrial Court allowed the appeal and quashed the Certifying Officer's order. The High Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Certifying Officer had exceeded his jurisdiction and had not applied his mind while allowing the application. The Industrial Court's order was found to be correct and in accordance with law. The High Court noted that the Certifying Officer had mechanically allowed the application without considering the relevant factors and without giving proper reasons. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Standing Orders - Jurisdiction of Certifying Officer - The Certifying Officer under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 has limited jurisdiction to certify standing orders and cannot modify substantive conditions like retirement age without proper application of mind and evidence. The Industrial Court, in appeal under Section 6 of the Act, correctly quashed the order extending retirement age from 58 to 60 years as it was beyond the scope of the Act. (Paras 1-5)
B) Industrial Law - Appeal - Section 6 of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 - The Industrial Court has appellate jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the Certifying Officer's order. In the present case, the Industrial Court found that the Certifying Officer had not applied his mind and had mechanically allowed the application, and thus set aside the order. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Certifying Officer under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 has jurisdiction to modify the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years without proper application of mind and whether the Industrial Court was correct in quashing such order.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order quashing the Certifying Officer's decision to extend retirement age from 58 to 60 years. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of Certifying Officer under Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act
- 1946
- Scope of appeal under Section 6 of the Act
- Modification of standing orders
- Retirement age determination
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (06) 15
Writ Petition No.4691 of 2016
Mr. T.K. Prabhakaran for Petitioner; Mr. Sandesh R. Patil for Respondent
Foundation Brake Kamgar Sanghatna
M/s Foundation Brake Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order of Industrial Court in appeal under Section 6 of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner union sought to set aside the Industrial Court order quashing the Certifying Officer's order extending retirement age from 58 to 60 years.
Filing Reason
The Certifying Officer allowed the union's application to extend retirement age; the employer appealed to Industrial Court which quashed that order.
Previous Decisions
Certifying Officer (Deputy Commissioner of Labour) passed order dated 21.8.2015 allowing application to extend retirement age; Industrial Court in Appeal (IESO) No.1 of 2015 quashed that order on 26.2.2016.
Issues
Whether the Certifying Officer had jurisdiction to modify the age of retirement under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.
Whether the Industrial Court correctly exercised its appellate jurisdiction under Section 6 of the Act.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Certifying Officer had power to modify standing orders and the Industrial Court erred in quashing the order.
Respondent argued that the Certifying Officer acted without jurisdiction and without application of mind, and the Industrial Court correctly set aside the order.
Ratio Decidendi
The Certifying Officer under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 has limited jurisdiction and cannot modify substantive conditions like retirement age without proper application of mind. The Industrial Court, in appeal under Section 6, correctly quashed such an order as it was beyond the scope of the Act.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard.
The petitioner union has filed the present petition against order dated 26th February, 2016 passed by Member, Industrial Court, Jalgaon in Appeal (IESO) No.1 of 2015.
The aforesaid appeal was filed by the present respondent, seeking quashment of order dated 21.8.2015 in Application No.1 of 2015 passed by Deputy Commissioner of Labour, i.e. Certifying Officer, under The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946...
Procedural History
The petitioner union filed Application No.1 of 2015 before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Certifying Officer) under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 seeking extension of retirement age from 58 to 60 years. The Certifying Officer allowed the application on 21.8.2015. The respondent employer filed Appeal (IESO) No.1 of 2015 before the Industrial Court, Jalgaon, which allowed the appeal and quashed the Certifying Officer's order on 26.2.2016. The petitioner union then filed the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 22.6.2016.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946: Section 6
