Case: The Associated Cement Company Ltd Vs. Shri P. D. Vyas And Others

be impracticable to do so, the draft standing order must be in conformity with the model standing order. It is quite true that this requirement does not mean that the draft standing order must be in identical words but it does mean than in substance it must conform to the model prescribed by the appropriate government. 7. The question which then arises is: was it or was it not open to respondent 2 to consider whether the draft submitted by the appellants should not conform to the model standing order in respect of the topics with which we are concerned in the present appeal?The answer to this question must obviously be in the affirmative. It was not only open to respondent 2 to enquire into the matter but it was clearly his duty to do so before holding that the draft orders were certifiable under S. 4. Now such an enquiry necessarily involves the consideration of the question as to whether it would be practicable to insist upon conformity with the model standing order in regard to the matters in dispute. If respondent 2 was satisfied that it would be practicable to insist upon such conformity it would be within his competence to make the suitable modifications it the draft. If, on the other hand, he took the view that it would not be practicable to insist upon such conformity he would, despite the disparity between the model and the draft, treat the draft as certifiable.In the present case respondent 2 as well as respondent 1 have held that it was practicable to insist upon conformity with the model standing order in regard to the matters, in dispute; and so they have made suitable modifications. Having regard to the relevant provision which we have just considered, it seems difficult to accept the plea that in making the modifications in question respondent 2 and respondent 1 have exceeded their jurisdiction.It is important to make a distinction between considerations of fairness or reasonableness which are excluded from the purview of the enquiry before respondent 2 and respondent 1 from considerations of practicability which are necessarily imported in such an enquiry. The line separating the one from the other may be thin but nevertheless it is a firm and existing line which is statutorily recognised in the respective provisions of the Act. Respondent 2 may not modify the draft on the ground that its provisions are unfair or unreasonable but he can and must modify the draft in matters covered by the model standing order if he is satisfied that conformity with such model standing order is practicable in the circumstance of the case.In our opinion, therefore, the High Court was right in holding that the authorities under the Act had acted within their jurisdiction in making the impugned modifications. 8. We may now refer to the decisions to which our attention was invited by Mr. Kolah. In Guest, Keen, Williams (Private) Ltd. v. P. J. Sterling, 1959-2 Lab LJ 405: (AIR 1959 SC 1279 ), this Court had occasion to consider the effect of a part of the provision contained in S. 4 of the Act as it stood before its amendment in 1956. It is, however, clear that in that case the point raised for our decision now did not fall to be considered. In Electric workers Union v. The U. P. Electric Supply Co., AIR 1949 All 504 , Mr. Justice Wanchoo, who was acting as the appellate authority under the Act, appears to have held that the provision contained in S. 3(2) had nothing to do with the power of the certifying officer to substitute the model for the draft. According to the learned judge the said provision was intended merely to help and guide the employers as to how they should frame their draft standing orders. This decision apparently supports the argument that the certifying officer cannot make any changes in the provisions of the draft where those provisions are clear on the ground that they are not reasonable and fair and that other provisions which may have been provided in the model standing orders should be substituted for them. If, in making these observations, it was intended to decide that, before certifying the draft standing orders submitted by the employer, the certifying officer cannot enquire and decide whether it would be practicable or not to make the provisions in the draft conform to the model standing orders, with respect, we would hold that the said decision is inconsistent with the true effect of the relevant provisions of the Act. We may incidentally add that the observations made by Wanchoo J. in that case have not been approved by the Allahabad High Court in Jiwan Mal and Co. v. Secretary, Kanpur Loha Mills Karamchari Union, AIR 1955 All 581 . In Mysore Kirloskar Employees Association v. Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, 1959-1 Lah LJ 531: (AIR 195 Mys 235), the Mysore High Court has considered this question and it appears to have concurred more with the view expressed by the Bombay High Court which is the subject-matter of the present appeal that with the observations of Wanchoo J 9. There is one more point to which reference must be made. Mr. Kolah attempted to argue before us that, even if the authorities under the Act had jurisdiction to deal with the matter and examine whether or not it was practicable to insist upon conformity with the model standing orders, the modifications made by them on the merits are impracticable.We have not allowed Mr. Kolah to urge this contention before us because such a plea was not raised by the appellants in their petition for a writ before the Bombay High Court, and it would not be open to them to raise it for the first time before us. Besides, in a petition for a writ of certiorari it would normally not be open to the appellants to challenge the merits of the findings made by the authorities under the Act.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]Thus presented the argument is no doubt attractive; but there are some other provisions in the Act which show that the argument based on the said provision of S. 4 cannot succeed. It is, therefore, necessary to consider the other provisions which are material. Before we do so, we would like to add that by a subsequent amendment made in1956, S. 4 now provides that it shall be the function of the certifying officer or the appellate authority to adjudicate upon the fairness or reasonableness of the provisions of any standing orders. N other words, what was expressly excluded from the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act has now been clearly made their duty, and so the argument based upon the provision as it stood in 1946 is, after the amendment of 1956, purely academicThe cumulative effect of these provisions is that the certifying officer has to be satisfied that the draft standing orders deal with every matter set out in the Schedule and are otherwise in conformity with the provisions of the Act. This latter requirement necessarily imports the consideration specified in S. 3, sub-s. (2), that is to say, the draft standing order must be in conformity with the model standing order which is provided under S. 15 (2) (b) for the purposes of the Act, and, as we have already seen, unless it is shown that it would be impracticable to do so, the draft standing order must be in conformity with the model standing order. It is quite true that this requirement does not mean that the draft standing order must be in identical words but it does mean than in substance it must conform to the model prescribed by the appropriate governmentThe answer to this question must obviously be in the affirmative. It was not only open to respondent 2 to enquire into the matter but it was clearly his duty to do so before holding that the draft orders were certifiable under S.. Now such an enquiry necessarily involves the consideration of the question as to whether it would be practicable to insist upon conformity with the model standing order in regard to the matters in dispute. If respondent 2 was satisfied that it would be practicable to insist upon such conformity it would be within his competence to make the suitable modifications it the draft. If, on the other hand, he took the view that it would not be practicable to insist upon such conformity he would, despite the disparity between the model and the draft, treat the draft as certifiable.In the present case respondent 2 as well as respondent 1 have held that it was practicable to insist upon conformity with the model standing order in regard to the matters, in dispute; and so they have made suitable modifications. Having regard to the relevant provision which we have just considered, it seems difficult to accept the plea that in making the modifications in question respondent 2 and respondent 1 have exceeded their jurisdiction.It is important to make a distinction between considerations of fairness or reasonableness which are excluded from the purview of the enquiry before respondent 2 and respondent 1 from considerations of practicability which are necessarily imported in such an enquiry. The line separating the one from the other may be thin but nevertheless it is a firm and existing line which is statutorily recognised in the respective provisions of the Act. Respondent 2 may not modify the draft on the ground that its provisions are unfair or unreasonable but he can and must modify the draft in matters covered by the model standing order if he is satisfied that conformity with such model standing order is practicable in the circumstance of the case.In our opinion, therefore, the High Court was right in holding that the authorities under the Act had acted within their jurisdiction in making the impugned modificationsThis decision apparently supports the argument that the certifying officer cannot make any changes in the provisions of the draft where those provisions are clear on the ground that they are not reasonable and fair and that other provisions which may have been provided in the model standing orders should be substituted for them. If, in making these observations, it was intended to decide that, before certifying the draft standing orders submitted by the employer, the certifying officer cannot enquire and decide whether it would be practicable or not to make the provisions in the draft conform to the model standing orders, with respect, we would hold that the said decision is inconsistent with the true effect of the relevant provisions of the Act. We may incidentally add that the observations made by Wanchoo J. in that case have not been approved by the Allahabad High Court in Jiwan Mal and Co. v. Secretary, Kanpur Loha Mills Karamchari Union, AIR 1955 All 581  . In Mysore Kirloskar Employees Association v. Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, 1959-1 Lah LJ 531: (AIR 195 Mys 235), the Mysore High Court has considered this question and it appears to have concurred more with the view expressed by the Bombay High Court which is the subject-matter of the present appeal that with the observations of Wanchoo J9. There is one more point to which reference must be made. Mr. Kolah attempted to argue before us that, even if the authorities under the Act had jurisdiction to deal with the matter and examine whether or not it was practicable to insist upon conformity with the model standing orders, the modifications made by them on the merits are impracticable.We have not allowed Mr. Kolah to urge this contention before us because such a plea was not raised by the appellants in their petition for a writ before the Bombay High Court, and it would not be open to them to raise it for the first time before us. Besides, in a petition for a writ of certiorari it would normally not be open to the appellants to challenge the merits of the findings made by the authorities under the Act.