The petitioner has, by way of this petition, challenged the order of the Certifying Officer, Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour whereby Certified Standing Orders are amended. The petitioner has also challenged the judgement and award dated 5.7.2003 passed by the Member of Industrial Court, Rajkot, in Appeal I.C. No. 11 of 2011 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed by confirming the order and award dated 19.9.2001 passed by the Certifying Officer. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the representative of the employees has agreed for Standing Orders and they cannot amend the Standing Orders subsequently in view of the agreement. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. VS. MAHARASHTRA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION AND OTHERS reported in 1999 I CLR 518, more particularly paragraph Nos. 11 and 36 and contended that in view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, proposed amendment could not be allowed. She has also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D.G., RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE & ORS. VS. K. RAGHURAM BABU reported in AIR 2008 SC 1958 and contended that the orders passed by the Industrial Court and the Certifying Officer are required to be quashed and set aside.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the Order of the Certifying Officer dated 19.9.2001 annexed at Annexure-C to the petition and contended that in view of the reasoning given by the Certifying Officer that the workers are illiterate and they are required to be defended by a person who has knowledge in Gujarati and the Standing Orders and the employee should be allowed to be represented through a Trade Union. The said order of the Certifying Officer was approved by the Industrial Court, Rajkot, while dismissing the appeal being Appeal I.C. No. 11 of 2001 preferred by the petitioner. The Industrial Court, Rajkot, has discussed the law in the order dated 5.7.2003 and therefore, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that no interference is called for with the same by this Court.
4. Keeping in mind the calibre of the employees and in the departmental proceedings when complicated legal issues are involved, they are required to be represented through office bearer of the trade union, the Standing Orders were required to be amended and if the employees are allowed to be represented through office bearer of the trade union of which he is a member, in my view, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner in the departmental proceedings initiated against the workman. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable. The petition is devoid of any merit and stands dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. Interim relief stands vacated.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (pkn)