AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mahesh Grover, J.—The petitioner''s grievance is directed against the order dated 25.9.1992 by which his appeal preferred against the certification of the standing orders of the respondent company was declined on the ground of limitation. The standing orders were certified on 1.4.1991 after due process of law and inviting all objections etc. Section 6 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 provides for appeals to be preferred against such certification by an aggrieved person which would include an employer, workman, trade union or prescribed representatives of the workman. Such appeal is to be lodged within 30 days of the certification of such orders. The petitioner preferred an appeal in October, 1991 whereas certification took place on 1.4.1991. The appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a grievance of the same but Section 6 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946 would negate such a plea. Section 6 is extracted here below:-
"6. Appeals - (Any employer, workman, trade union or other prescribed representatives of the workman) aggrieved by the order of the Certifying Officer under sub-section (2) of section 5 may, within (thirty days) from the date on which copies are sent under sub-section (3) of that section, appeal to the appellate authority, and the appellate authority, whose decision shall be final, shall by order in writing confirm the standing orders either in the form certified by the Certifying Officer or after amending the said standing orders by making such modifications thereof or additions thereto as it thinks necessary to render the standing orders certifiable under this Act.
(2) The appellate authority, shall, within seven days of its order under sub-section (1), send copies thereof of the Certifying Officer to the employer and to the trade union or other prescribed representatives of the workmen accompanied unless it has confirmed without amendment the standing orders as certified by the Certifying Officer, by copies of the standing orders as certified by it and authenticated in the prescribed manner."
There is no provision in the Act empowering the appellate authority to condone the delay and if that be so, then the appeal which was preferred beyond limitation was rightly rejected. Finding no infirmity with the impugned order, instant petition is, dismissed. It is also to be noticed that since 1991 more than two decades have passed and in the considered view of the Court with the efflux of time the instant petition has been robbed of any justifiable relevance to the cause.
Hence, dismissed.