# WORKMEN OF BALMER LAWRJE AND CO. !Vovernber 7 v. BALMER LAWRIE AND CO

- **Citation:** [1964] 5 S.C.R. 344
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1961-06-29
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 820 of 1962
- **Bench:** P.B. Gajendragadkar, K.N. Wanchoo, K.C. Das Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/workmen-of-balmer-lawrje-and-co-vovernber-7-v-balmer-lawrie-and-co-2979
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Industrial Dispute-Clerical and subordinate staff-Age of
retirement-Reduction of grades-Wage structure-Conditions for
re-examination-Revision of wage sca/es-Princip/es--Res judicataApp/icability-Comparable character of industrial undertakings
Industrial disputes arose between the respondent and its
employees the appellants. The appellants demanded the reduction of the existing five grades into two grades, increase in the
scales of pay, privilege and medical leave and increase of the existing age of retirement which was 55.
The Tribunal rejected all
the demands of the appellants, but allowed an increase of Rs. 10
in the initial salary of all grades. In appeal by special leave:
Held: The age of retirement in case of the respondent's workmen should be increased to 58. Time has now come for increasing the age of retirement in the case of clerical staff and subordinate
staff generally from 55 to 58.
· Guest, Keen
Williams Private Ltd. v. P.J. Sterling, (1960.)
1 S.C.R. 348 and Workmen of M/s.
Jessop & Co. Ltd. v. M/s
Jessop & Co., [1964] I.L.L.J. 451 1961, followed.
(ii) In the present case having regard to the genesis and the
manner in which these grades have functioned since 1949, it is not
necessary to make any adjustments in the grades by reducing their
number.
(iii) The question as to the revision of wage scales must be
examined on the merits in each individual case. Technical considerations of res judicata should not be allowed to hamper the
discretion of industrial adjudication. The principle of gradual
advance towards the living wage which industrial adjudication
can· never ignore, itself constitutes such a special feature of industrial
adjudication that it renders the application of the technical rule
of res judicata singularly in appropriate. If the paying capdcity
of the employer increases or the cost of living index shows an
upward trend, or there are other anomalies, mistakes, or errors
in the award fixing wage structure, or there has been a rise in the
wage structure iu comparable industries in the region, industrial
employees would be justified in making a claim for the re-examination of the wage structme and if such a claim is referred for industrial
adjudication, the Adjudicator would not normally be justified in
rejecting it solely on the ground that enough time has not passed
after the making of the award, or that material change in
•
..
5 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
345
relevant circwrntances had not been proved. It is, of course not
possible to lay down any hard and fast rule in the matter. The
question must be examined on the merits in each case.
Burn & Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1959) 1 L.L.J. 450 and
James Finlay & Co. Ltd. Employees Union, Calcutta v. M/s. James
Finlay & Co. Lid. Calcutta, 1957 L.A.C. 154, referred to.
In dealing with industrial matters, industrial adjudication should
not normally encourage technical pleas and having regard to the
fact that cases are conducted before the Tribunal many times by
laymen, the significance or the importance of the argument that
a particular question is not put to a particular witness should
never be exaggerated.
(iv) In dealing with the comparable character of industrial
undertaking, industrial adjudication does not normally rely on
oral evidence alone. This question is considered in the light of
material facts and circumstances which are generally proved by
documentary eYidence. The total capital invested by the concern,
the profits made by the concern the dividends paid, the number
of employees, the standing of the concern in the industry, these
and other matters have to be examined in determining whether
one concern ifl comparable with another in the matter of fixing
wage, and thes1: questions cannot be decided merely on the interested testimony of either the workmen or the employer and his witnesses.

## Text

344
. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964]
~
1963
WORKMEN OF BALMER LAWRJE AND CO.
!Vovernber 7
v.
BALMER LAWRIE AND CO.
(P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO AND
K.C. DAS GUPTA JJ.)
Industrial Dispute-Clerical and subordinate staff-Age of
retirement-Reduction of grades-Wage structure-Conditions for
re-examination-Revision of wage sca/es-Princip/es--Res judicataApp/icability-Comparable character of industrial undertakings
Industrial disputes arose between the respondent and its
employees the appellants. The appellants demanded the reduction of the existing five grades into two grades, increase in the
scales of pay, privilege and medical leave and increase of the existing age of retirement which was 55.
The Tribunal rejected all
the demands of the appellants, but allowed an increase of Rs. 10
in the initial salary of all grades. In appeal by special leave:
Held: The age of retirement in case of the respondent's workmen should be increased to 58. Time has now come for increasing the age of retirement in the case of clerical staff and subordinate
staff generally from 55 to 58.
· Guest, Keen
Williams Private Ltd. v. P.J. Sterling, (1960.)
1 S.C.R. 348 and Workmen of M/s.
Jessop & Co. Ltd. v. M/s
Jessop & Co., [1964] I.L.L.J. 451 1961, followed.
(ii) In the present case having regard to the genesis and the
manner in which these grades have functioned since 1949, it is not
necessary to make any adjustments in the grades by reducing their
number.
(iii) The question as to the revision of wage scales must be
examined on the merits in each individual case. Technical considerations of res judicata should not be allowed to hamper the
discretion of industrial adjudication. The principle of gradual
advance towards the living wage which industrial adjudication
can· never ignore, itself constitutes such a special feature of industrial
adjudication that it renders the application of the technical rule
of res judicata singularly in appropriate. If the paying capdcity
of the employer increases or the cost of living index shows an
upward trend, or there are other anomalies, mistakes, or errors
in the award fixing wage structure, or there has been a rise in the
wage structure iu comparable industries in the region, industrial
employees would be justified in making a claim for the re-examination of the wage structme and if such a claim is referred for industrial
adjudication, the Adjudicator would not normally be justified in
rejecting it solely on the ground that enough time has not passed
after the making of the award, or that material change in
•
..
5 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
345
relevant circwrntances had not been proved. It is, of course not
possible to lay down any hard and fast rule in the matter. The
question must be examined on the merits in each case.
Burn & Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1959) 1 L.L.J. 450 and
James Finlay & Co. Ltd. Employees Union, Calcutta v. M/s. James
Finlay & Co. Lid. Calcutta, 1957 L.A.C. 154, referred to.
In dealing with industrial matters, industrial adjudication should
not normally encourage technical pleas and having regard to the
fact that cases are conducted before the Tribunal many times by
laymen, the significance or the importance of the argument that
a particular question is not put to a particular witness should
never be exaggerated.
(iv) In dealing with the comparable character of industrial
undertaking, industrial adjudication does not normally rely on
oral evidence alone. This question is considered in the light of
material facts and circumstances which are generally proved by
documentary eYidence. The total capital invested by the concern,
the profits made by the concern the dividends paid, the number
of employees, the standing of the concern in the industry, these
and other matters have to be examined in determining whether
one concern ifl comparable with another in the matter of fixing
wage, and thes1: questions cannot be decided merely on the interested testimony of either the workmen or the employer and his witnesses.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No. 820 of 1962.
Appeal by special leave from the award dated
June 29, 1961, of the First Industrial Tribunal, West
Bengal in Case No. VIII-608 of 1960.
P.K. Sanya! and P.K. Mukherjee, for the appellants.
B. Sen, S. Ghosh a)1d B.N. Ghosh, for the respondent No. 1.
November 7, 1963. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
1963
Workmen of
Balmer Lawrie
and Co.
v.
Balmer Lawrie
and Co.
GAJENDRAGADK AR J.-An industrial dispute bet- Gajendragadkar
ween the irespondent, M/s Balmer Lawrie & Co.,
J.
and its employees, the appellants, has given rise to
the present appeal by special leave. The dispute
related to four demands made by the appellants
and it was referred for adjudication by the Government of 'West Bengal to the Industrial Tribunal
constituted under section 7 A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. These demands were:
grades
346
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964]
1963
and scales of pay, privilege leave, medical leave and
retiring age. In regard to the claim of the appellants
Workmen of for reducing the existing five grades into two grades
Balmer Lawrie organised on a rational and scientific basis, the Tribuand Co.
nal held that, on the whole,
the grades seemed to
v.
function satisfactorily, and so, no case had been
Balmer Lawrie made out for their amalgamation. The demand
and Co.
for increase in the scales of pay was substantially
G . ~
dk
rejected by the Tribunal, but it held that the appellants
a1en rJga
ar should be given some relief by increasing the initial
·
salary of all the grades by Rs. 10. The claims for
privilege leave and medical leave were rejected by the
Tribunal; it held that the mere fact that two concerns
in the neighbourhood had agreed to give more than
21 days' privilege leave, was no justification for changing the present rule as to privilege leave which governed
the appellants, and as to medical leave, the Tribunal
held that the construction which the respond1:nt
was plaCing on the relevant rule contained in Exbt. F
was inadmissible, and so, there was no necessity for
introducing any rule that the production of a medical
certificate from any medical practitioner should suffice.
The Tribunal then examined the appellants' claim as
to the retirement age and it held that the existing
age of retirement which was at 55 needed no change.
An award was accordingly passed in the light of the
findings recorded by the Tribunal on the four demands
made by the appellants. It is this award which is
challenged by the appellants before us.
<
In respect of the age of retirement, the approach
adopted by the Tribunal appears to be unsatisfactory.
This question has been comidered by this Court on
several occasions. In Guest, Keen, Williams Private
Ltd. v. P.J. Sterling & Ors.ell. this Court has discussed
in a general way the considerations which are relevant
and material in determining a proper age for superannuation in industrial employments. As has been
observed by this Court recently in the case of Workmen
of M/s Jessop & Co. Ltd. v. M/sJessop & Co. & Ors.< 2l
f
(1) [196011 S.C.R. 348.
(2) [19641 1 L.L.J. 451.
-
-
5S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
347
we feel that the time has now come for increasing
1963
the age of retirement in the case of clerical staff
and the subordinate staff generally from 55 to 58.
Workmen of
It appears that the attention of the Tribunal was not Balmer Lawrie
drawn to the relevant decisions of this Court; otherand Co.
wise, the Tribunal would not have rejected the appelv.
!ants' claim.
In fact, in the present appeal, Mr. Balmer Lawrie
Sen for the respondent has agreed that the age of
and Co.
retirement should be increased from 55 to 58. We
-
accordingly n:verse the order passed by the Tribunal Gajendragadkar
in that behalf and direct that the age of retirement
J.
in the case of the respondent's workmen should be
58 and not 55 as from the date of this judgment.
That takes us to the question about the reduction
of the grades from 5 to 2. Mr. Sanyal for the appellants contend> that generally two grades are adopted
by industrial concerns and he urges that the presence
of five grades is both unscientific and inexpedient.
It may be conceded that two or three grades are generally adopted by industrial concerns, but in the present
case, it is m:cessary to bear in mind the previous
history of the creation of these grades and to take
into account the fact that these five grades have,
on the whole, satisfactorily functioned in the concern
of the respondent. In the award pronounced between
the parties, in 1949, these five grades were evolved.
Floormen who are mentioned in the award correspond
to Grade I which is described as the Sub-grade in
the respondent's concern.
Then we have the remaining four grades described as Junior Grade, Senior
Grade, Section Head Grade and Supervisor Grade.
These correspond to the four grades Nos. II, III,
IV & V in the respondent's concern. Since 1949,
these grades have been maintained by the respondent.
That is the genesis of the 5 grades.
It cannot be seriously disputed that the employees
working in the Sub-grade which is Grade I are entrusted with a distinctly inferior type of work and
they cannot be integrated with Grades 11 or III.
Then as to Grades II and III, it is significant that
there is automatic promotion from one to the other
348
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964]
r
1963
(Annexure D). This automatic promotion is, of course,
subject to the condition that the Clerks concerned
Workmen of have satisfactory service records and it is granted
Balmer Lawrie on the clear understanding that they would continue
and Co.
to undertake Grade II duties. lt also appears that
v.
a Clerk who joined the company in Grade I and was
Balmer Lawrie placed in Grade II prior to the abolition of Grade
and Co.
I, or on the date when this Grade was abolished,
-
would be automatically promoted and fitte'd in the
Gajendragadkar next higher Grade, subject to the conditions mentioned
1·
in the rule. Thus, it is clear that between Grades
II and III which might have been amalgamated into
one Grade, there is automatic promotion.
This
method has the advantage of enabling the employer
to recognise outstanding merit in a Clerk working in the lower grade by promoting him straightaway to the higher grade. The appellants have not
suggested that such promotions
in recognition of
outstanding service and efficiency have never been
given, nor have they alleged that they have been given
for improper reasons. As to Grades IV and V,
they are in the nature of selection grades and the
work entrusted to the employees in the two grades
is of such a distinctive character that it would be
unreasonable to think of amalgamating them into
one grade. Therefore, we are satisfied that having
regard to the genesis of the five grades which prevailed
in the respondent's concern and the manner in which
these grades have functioned since 1949, it is not
necessary to make any adjustments in the grades
by reducing their number. Accordingly, we think
the Tribunal was right in refusing to accept the demand
of the appellants to reduce the grades from five to
two.
The next question to consider is one in regard
to the increase in the scales of pay. The Tribunal
has rejected this claim on the ground that no material
change had been proved in the relevant circumstances
sin-::e the scales were previously fixed. It appears that
when the grades were fiist determined by an award
in 1949, they operated for three years; then a revision
I
•I '
'
SS.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
349
was made in 1952 and another revision was effected
1963
in 1955. By these revisions, modification has been
made in the max·1mum salary payable to the employees
Workmen °!
in the different grades, but the minimum remained Balmer Lawrie
unchanged. That is why the Tribunal has made
and Co.
an ad hoc addition of Rs. IO to the mmimum salary
v.
in the respective grades. The Tribunal thought that Balmer Lawrie
this modification would meet the ends of justice.
and Co.
The other reason given by the Tribunal for rejecting
. -
dk
the claim is that the plea of the high increase in the Ga1endraga
ar
cost of living on which the appellants relied was not
J.
valid, because dearness allowance was paid to the
appellants under the Bengal Chambers of Commerce
Formula and that, the Tribunal thought, answered
the appellants' contention about the rise in the cost
of living. The appellants also relied on an agreement between the parties and urged that by virtue
of the said agr·~ement, they were entitled to claim
a revision of the wage scale, because four comparable
concerns in the region had in the meanwhile revised
their wage scale8. The Tribunal was not impressed by
this plea either. It is these findings recorded by the
1 ribunal that need to be examined in the present
appeal.
Taking the first argument that there has been no
change in the circumstances, the Tribunal has relied
upon two decisions in support of the view that unless
a material change in circumstances is proved, there
can be no change in the wage structure. In Burn
& Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen & OrsPl this Court
has observed that in the absence of anything to show
th.at b~tween 1950 ao.d 1955 when the present industnal dispute was referred for adjudication, circumstance~ had so altered to make the existing scales
of pay and grades unreasonable or irn;dequate to
meet the conditions prevailing at the time the industrial
dispute had been referred to the Tribunal, it must be
held that any revision of the existing wage-scales or
grades was unjustified.
Similarly, in James Finlay
& Co. Ltd. Employees' Union, Calcutta v. M/s. James
(I) [1959] I L.L.J. 450.
350
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964]
1963
Finlay & Co. Ltd., Calcutta< 1l, the Labour Appellate
Tribunal observed that though the principles of
Workmen o! res judicata had no application to adjudication on
Balmer Lawne industrial disputes, on principle, a previous award
and Co.
should not be changed, except on justifiable grounds.
v.
The Appellate Tribunal then proceeded to observe
Balmer Lawrie that some of the grounds on which the award can
andCo.
be changed are: change of circumstances, principle
G . -
of gradual advance to the living wage; anomaly,
a1end7gadkar mistake or error in the last award involving hardship
·
to either party or both.
While dealing with the question about the revision of wage scales, it is necessary to remember that
the technical considerations of res judicata should
not be allowed to hamper the discretion of industrial
adjudication. It is undoubtedly true that wage scales
are devised and wage structures constructed as matters
of long-term pclicy, and so, industrial adjudication
would naturally be reluctant to interfere with
the wage structures without justification or in a lighthearted manner. When a wage structure is framed,
all relevant factors are taken into account and normally it should remain in operation for a fairly long
period; but it would be unreasonable to introduce
considerations of res judicata as such, because for various reasons which constitute the special characteristics
of industrial adjudication the said technical considerations would be inadmissible. As the Labour
Appellate Tribunal itself has observed, the principle
of gradual advance towards the living wage which
industrial adjudication can never ignore, itself constitutes such a special feature of industrial adjudication
that it renders the application of the technical rule
of res judicata singularly inappropriate. If the paying
capacity of the employer increases or the cost of living
shows an upward trend, or there are other anomalies,
mistakes or errors in the award fixing wage structure,
or there has been a rise in the wage structure in comparable industries in the region, industrial employees
would be justified in making a claim for the re-exami-
(1) [1957] L.A.C. 154.
..
5S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
351
nation of the wage structure and if such a claim is
referred for industrial adjudication, the Adjudicator
would not normally be justified in rejecting it solely
on the ground that enough time has not passed after
the making of the award, or that material change in
relevant circumstances had not been proved. It is,
of course, not possible to lay down any hard and fast
rule in the matter. The question as to revision must
be examined on the merits in each individual case that
1963
Workmen of
Balmer Lawrie
and Co.
v.
Balmer Lawrie
and Co.
is brought before an adjudicator for his adjudication. Gajendragadkar
J.
Then as to the rise in the cost of living, the
Tribunal has no doubt observed that having regard to
the fact that dearness allowance is paid to the appellants' under the Bengal Chambers of Commerce
formula, the appellants' plea was not valid; but it
does not appear that the Tribunal has considered the
question a& to whether the said
forumla affords
complete neutralisation to the employees
against
the rise in the cost of living.
We propose to
express no opinion on this point, but we are concerned
to point out that unless the Tribunal had examined
the matter carefully and bad come to the definite
conclusion that the formula in question gave nearly
complete neutralisation against the rise in the cost
of living, it would be unreasonable to hold that because
the Chamber forumla is adopted by the respondent
for payment of dearness allowance to its employees,
the complaint of the appellants that there has been
a rise in the cost of living and so, their wage structures should be revised, has no substance.
This
is a matter which has to be carefully examined before
any conclusion is reached in a satisfactory way.
.
That leav.es another point to be considered and
it bas ~efercnce to the agreement between the parties
on which the appellants relied. In 1955, when by
agreement the wage scales were revised, the parties
agree_d that the pay scales then introduced would
r~mam unchallen_ged "unless amended by any Mercant1~e Ommbus Tnbunal _or any legislation prescribing
higher rates of pay, or Ill the event of any substantial
enhancement of scales of pay being effected generally
352
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964]
1963
in other Mercantile Firms of Balmer Lawrie & Co.
Ltd.' s standing, or in the event of any extraneous
Workmen °1 circumstances arising resulting in a general demand for
Balmer Lawrie further enhancement of the scales of pay." The appeland Co.
!ants contended that wage scales had been recently
v.
revised by the Imperial Tobacco Co. Ltd., Shaw
Balmer Lawrie Wallace Co., Voltas Co. and Tata Iron & Steel Co.,
and Co.
and in support of this plea, they examined four wit-
. -
nesses who proved the revised scales of wages..
The
Ga;endragadkar argument was that these concerns are comparable
1·
concerns and since there has been a revision of wage
scales in these concerns, the appellants were entitled
to claim a revision of their wage scales in accordance
with the terms of the agreement. After the appellants
led their evidence in proof of the fact that the four
concerns had revised their pay scales, the respondent
examined some witnesses on its behalf. Amongst
these witnesses was Kamal Prasad Sircar. In his
evidence he mentioned the names of six firms: which,
according to him, were comparable with the firm of
the respondent. Amongst these firms, he did not include any of the four firms referred to by the appellants.
The Tribunal took the view that since Sircar was not
cross-examined on the question as to whether any of
the said four firms are comparable to the respondent's
concern, the plea of the appellants that the said firms
are comparable must be rejected. In our opinion,
the reason given by the Tribunal in rejecting the appellants' claim is wholly unsatisfactory and the approach
adopted by it in dealing with this matter inappropriate.
In dealing with industrial matters, industrial adjudication should not normally encourage technical pleas
and having regard to the fact that the cases are conducted before the Tribunal many times by laymen,
the significance or the importance of the argument
that a particular question is not put to a particular
witness should never be exaggerated. Besides, the
Tribunal has overlooked the fact that though evidence
was led by the appellants in respect of the four concerns
obviously on the ground that they were comparable
concerns, Sircar did not positively take the oath that
they were not comparable concerns, and so, it would
(
<
\
5S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
353
not be reasonable to make a finding against the appellants on the ground that Sircar was not asked any
question about it.
Besides, it is necessary to emphasise that in
dealing with the comparable character of industrial
undertakings, industrial
adjudication does
not
usually rely on oral evidence alone. This question is
considered in the light of material facts and circum1963
Workmen of
Balmer Lawrie
and Co.
v.
Balmer Lawrie
and Co.
stances which are generally proved by documentary Gajendragadkar
evidence. What is the total capital invested by the
J.
concern, what is the extent of its business, what is
the order of the profits made by the concern, what
are the dividends paid, how many employees are
employed by the concern, what is its standing in the
industry to which it belongs, these and other matters
have to be examined by industrial adjudication in
determining the question as to whether one concern
is comparable with another in the matter of fixing
wages. Now, it is obvious that these questions
cannot be decided merely on the interested testimony
either of the workmen, or of the employer and his
witnesses. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has lost sight
of this important feature. Therefore, we are satisfied
that the Tribunal was in error in refusing to consider
the merits of the appellants' claim in regard to the
modification and increase in the wage scales.
In regard to the appellants' grievance in respect
of privilege leave and medical leave, we see no substance.
The result is, the award rejecting the appellants'
7laim f~r modification and. revision of the wage scales
1s set aside and the matter 1s sent back to the Tribunal
for ~isposal of this issue in accordance with law.
~artles would be !it liberty to lead additional evidence
m support of thelf respective cases. The order made
~y the. i:r!bunal ~iving ad hoc increase of Rs. 10
m the 1mt1al salanes fixed for different grades is con·
~rmed. The other directions given by the award
m respect of the other claims made by the appellants
are also confirmed. Having regard to the fact that
1 SCI/64-23
354
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964]
the appellants have succeeded in respect of the retirement age and that an order of remand has been passed
Workmen of by us in their favour for a reconsideration of their
Balmer Lawrie claim as to revision of the wage scales, we direct
and Co.
that the respondent should pay the appellants their
1963
v.
costs in this Court.
Balmer Lawrie
and Co.
Gajendragadkar
J.
1963
November 8
A.ward partly set aside and case remanded.
GENERAL MANAGER, BHILAI STEEL
PROJECT, BHILAI
v.
STEEL WORKERS' UNION, BHOPAL AND ORS.
(P.B. GA.JENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO AND
K.C. DAS GUPTA JJ.)
Standing Orders- Certification-Jurisdiction of
Certifying
Officer-The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, (Act
No. 20 of 1946)-The Madhya Pradesh Industrial Workmen (Standing Orders) Act (M.P. Act No. 19 of 1959)-The Madhya Pradesh
Industrial Workmen (Standing Orders) Act (M.P. Act No. 26 of 1961)
-The Madhya Pradesh Industrial Workmen (Standing Orders)
Act (M. P. Act No. 5of1962) The Madhya Pradesh Gel'leral Clauses
A.ct (M.P. Act No. 3 of 1958), s. 25-The C.P. & Berar Industrial
Disputes and Settlement Act (No. 22 of 1947).
The appellant submitted for certification draft standing orders
on June 9, 1960 to the Certifying .Officer under the: Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.
The respondents
raised an objection that the Certifying Officer had no jurisdiction
inasmuch as the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Workmen (Standing
Orders) Act, 1959 applied to this industry and the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Overruling this objection
the Certifying Officer certified the draft standing orders on August
6, 1962. The respondents appealed to the Industrial Court, Madhya
Pradesh which upheld the objection and set aside the order of
certification as void, being without jurisdiction.
In appeal by
special leave: