http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5872 1997

PETITIONER: CALCUTTA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPN.  LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHEW KR.  SINGH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       30/11/2000

BENCH: S R Babu,, S N Variava

JUDGMENT:

L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

     J U D G M E N T

     RAJENDRA BABU, J.  :

     This  appeal  is filed against the orders made by  the High  Court  either  by the learned Single Judge or  by  the Division  Bench  of  the  High Court on  an  appeal  thereto declining  to interfere with an adjudication by the Tribunal under  the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] either by the learned Single  Judge or by the Division Bench of the High Court  on an appeal thereto.  Section 13-A of the Act provides that if any  question arises as to the application or interpretation of a standing order any employer or workman or a trade union or  other  representative  body  of workmen  may  refer  the question  to  any  one of the Labour Courts and  the  Labour Court to which such question is referred shall, after giving opportunity  to the parties, decide the same, which shall be final  and binding on the parties.  Standing Order 15(x)  of the  Certified  Standing  Order  of 1953  of  the  appellant provides  that taking intoxicants or noxious drugs while  on duty or being under their influence when reporting for duty, would  amount to misconduct entailing dismissal and Standing Order  15(b)  provides  that  no   order  of  dismissal   or suspension  for more than a week or of stoppage of increment shall  be made until an enquiry has been held to investigate the  circumstances of the case and to decide what offence or offences were committed.  The accused workman shall have the right  to  be  present  at the enquiry and  to  produce  any witness  in his defence.  Detailed and elaborate  provisions have  been made as to composition of the enquiry  committee, report  to  be  made and action to be  taken  thereon.   One Sushil  Kumar  Mukherjee  had been  dismissed  invoking  the aforesaid  provisions without holding an enquiry.   However, that  matter  became final as the Labour Court and the  High Court   dismissed   the  order   made  therein.   In   those circumstances,  an application was filed before the Tribunal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

under  the Act seeking interpretation as to the true  effect of  these provisions.  The contention put forth on behalf of the  appellant  is  that  there is  no  present  dispute  or controversy between the parties and that what led respondent No.1  to file his application is an apprehension in his mind that unless there is a proper interpretation of clause 15 of the  Certified  Standing  Order of 1953, the  management  is likely to victimise the workmen.  The Tribunal rejected this contention.   The  High Court held that the apprehension  of the  applicant-respondent No.1 cannot be stated to be as one purely   imaginary  not  based  on   facts  and  merely   an apprehension  in his mind.  His claim for interpretation  of clause  15  is  that  there was action  taken  invoking  the provisions  of clause 15 of the Certified Standing Order  of 1953 in a particular manner, correctness of which was put in issue  for  interpretation and that such a matter cannot  be stated  to  be one not covered by Section 13-A of  the  Act. The  view taken by the High Court, therefore, does not  call for  any interference.  The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.