Case Note & Summary
The writ petition arose from an appeal under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, pending before the Industrial Court. The management, aggrieved by the certified model standing orders, preferred an appeal. The respondent union filed a written statement and later sought to amend it before issues were cast. The Industrial Court rejected the amendment application, holding that no written statement is permissible in an appeal under the Act and that the proposed amendment contained arguments. The union challenged this order by way of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The central legal issue was whether filing of a written statement is allowed in such an appeal. The union argued that the rules do not prohibit written statements and that the Industrial Court misconstrued the nature of the proceeding. The management contended that the appeal is summary in nature and limited to the grounds of appeal, not requiring a written statement. The High Court examined Rule 13 of the Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959, which prescribes the procedure in appeal. The court noted that although termed an 'appeal', the rule enables the Industrial Court to call for evidence and direct parties to lead evidence, indicating that the proceeding is not one-sided. The court further observed that the Industrial Court must apply its mind at the stages under Rule 13(2) and (3) and record reasons, but the parties waived any grievance regarding past non-compliance. Holding that the Industrial Court erred in rejecting the amendment on the ground that no written statement is permissible, the High Court quashed the impugned order. The Industrial Court was directed to permit the filing of the written statement, cast issues, and proceed further. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Standing Orders - Appeal Procedure - Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 / Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959, Rule 13 - The Industrial Court, while hearing an appeal against certification of standing orders, may permit the respondent to file a written statement and may also allow oral evidence if necessary - The word 'appeal' does not connote a one-sided proceeding; the rules provide for calling evidence and giving opportunity to both sides - Held that the Industrial Court erred in rejecting the amendment to written statement on the ground that no written statement is permissible in appeal - Directed that the written statement be taken on record, issues be cast, and the matter proceed (Paras 9-17, 30) B) Industrial Law - Procedural Compliance - Application of Mind - Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959, Rule 13(2) and (3) - The Industrial Court must apply its mind at two stages: first, to decide whether to confirm the certification or not, and second, to fix a date for hearing and issue notices if not confirmed - Failure to record reasons at these stages would render the decision susceptible to challenge - However, on facts, the parties waived any grievance regarding past non-compliance due to the time spent and multiple rounds of litigation (Paras 12-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether filing of a Written Statement / Say should be permitted in an Appeal under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and the Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.10.2016 is quashed and set aside. The Industrial Court is directed to permit the filing of the written statement, cast issues, and proceed further in accordance with law. The rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Appeal under Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act
- 1946 is not a one-sided appellate proceeding but a quasi-judicial proceeding where evidence may be led and written statements may be filed
- Rule 13 of Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules
- 1959 enables Industrial Court to call for evidence and direct parties to file pleadings
- Industrial Court must apply mind and record reasons at preliminary stages under Rule 13(2) and (3)
