Workman Governed by Model Standing Orders, Not CCS Rules: Supreme Court 2014 inRaghubir Singh Quashes Termination Under Article 311(2)(b)
The Supreme Court in Raghubir Singh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways heldthat a workman under Section 2(s) ID Act is governed by Model Standing Orders underIndustrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, not Haryana Civil Services(Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987. The Court on 03.09.2014 quashed terminationinvoking Article 311(2)(b) Constitution without enquiry, holding disciplinary action mustfollow Standing Orders. Appellant conductor was terminated 02.04.1993 forunauthorised absence by dispensing enquiry under Article 311(2)(b) citing criminalcase. Practically, what we have seen is that State transport corporations wrongly applyCCS Rules to workmen. Supreme Court said workman status attracts ID Act andStanding Orders. This blog explains Glaxo Laboratories v. Presiding Officer (1984) 1 SCC1, why Raghubir Singh bars Article 311(2)(b) for workmen, and when disciplinaryproceedings under wrong rules vitiate termination.Facts: Haryana Roadways Invoked Article 311(2)(b) & CCS Rules, Supreme Court SaysWorkman Covered by Standing OrdersRaghubir Singh, conductor, terminated 02.04.1993 for unauthorised absence. Orderstated enquiry dispensed under Article 311(2)(b) as criminal case pending. No chargesheet, no domestic enquiry under Standing Orders. Labour Court upheld termination.High Court dismissed writ/LPA. Supreme Court held: “The appellant being a workmanas defined under Section 2(s) of the Act is an employee of the respondent therefore hewill be governed by the Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment(Standing Orders) Act, 1946.” The Supreme Court in Glaxo Laboratories v. PresidingOfficer, Labour Court (1984) 1 SCC 1 held Standing Orders have statutory force andgovern service conditions of workmen in industrial establishments. The Supreme Courtin Rajasthan State Road Transport v. Zakir Hussain (2005) 7 SCC 447 held Article 311not applicable to workmen; ID Act special law prevails. The Supreme Court in A.Palanisamy v. State of Tamil Nadu (2004) 13 SCC 512 held CCS Rules inapplicable toindustrial workmen. In Raghubir Singh, Haryana Roadways erroneously applied HaryanaCivil Services Rules 1987. A common mistake clients make is using Article 311(2)(b) forconductors/drivers. Raghubir Singh says follow Standing Orders, conduct enquiry. Forcorporations, amend service rules. For workmen, plead Standing Orders applicability.Article 311(2)(b) Cannot Be Invoked for Workman: Supreme Court Says DispensingEnquiry Without Reason IllegalTermination order invoked Article 311(2)(b) – “not reasonably practicable to holdenquiry”. Supreme Court held: 1. Article 311 applies to civil servants, not workmen, 2.No order recording satisfaction why enquiry impossible, 3. Criminal case pending notground to dispense enquiry. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel(1985) 3 SCC 398 held Article 311(2)(b) satisfaction must be on record. The SupremeCourt in Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab (1991) 1 SCC 362 quashed dismissal as noreasons for dispensing enquiry. The Supreme Court in Satyavir Singh v. Union of India(1985) 4 SCC 252 held mere pendency of criminal case not enough. In Raghubir Singh,no impossibility shown. The Supreme Court in Chief Security Officer v. Singasan RabiDas (1991) 1 SCC 729 held Article 311(2)(b) exceptional, not routine. For workmen, IDAct Section 11A requires employer to prove misconduct before Labour Court even if noenquiry. Here Haryana Roadways produced no evidence of unauthorised absence. TheSupreme Court in Workmen v. Firestone Tyre (1973) 1 SCC 813 held employer can leadevidence before Tribunal if no enquiry. Roadways didn’t. In our experience, STUs dismissdrivers for accident/absence citing Article 311(2)(b). Raghubir Singh declares it void forworkmen. For employers, hold Standing Orders enquiry. For workmen, challenge Article311(2)(b) order.
No Evidence of Misconduct Before Labour Court: Supreme Court Says Points ofDispute Should Have Been Answered in Workman’s FavourSupreme Court noted: “The respondent... has erroneously placed reliance on theorder of termination passed against the workman without producing any evidence onrecord to justify the alleged misconduct of unauthorised absence.” Under Section 11AID Act, if no domestic enquiry or defective enquiry, employer must lead evidence beforeLabour Court. The Supreme Court in Shankar Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. (1979)3 SCC 371 held if employer doesn’t seek opportunity to adduce evidence, workmanentitled to relief. The Supreme Court in Karnataka SRTC v. Lakshmidevamma (2001) 5SCC 433 held employer must make request at first instance. Haryana Roadways didn’t.Hence termination bad. The Supreme Court in Mavji C. Lakum v. Central Bank of India(2008) 12 SCC 726 held Labour Court must grant relief if misconduct not proved.Raghubir Singh directed reinstatement as termination void ab initio. The Supreme Courtin Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (2013) 10 SCC 324held reinstatement + full back wages normal rule if termination illegal. Here back wagesrestricted from 2005 due to delay. A common mistake clients make is not asking LabourCourt to draw adverse inference for no evidence. Raghubir Singh says Labour Courtmust answer reference. For workmen, insist employer proves misconduct. Foremployers, lead evidence.
Conclusion
Raghubir Singh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways establishes that workmanModel Standing Orders Article 311(2)(b) termination Raghubir Singh Supreme Court2014 jurisprudence mandates Standing Orders for workmen, not CCS Rules. SupremeCourt 03.09.2014 quashed termination under Article 311(2)(b) without enquiry, applyingGlaxo Laboratories (1984) 1 SCC 1 and Zakir Hussain (2005) 7 SCC 447. No evidence ofmisconduct led before Labour Court. As the law stands, Article 311(2)(b) inapplicable toID Act workmen; enquiry under Standing Orders mandatory. For State transport, followStanding Orders. For workmen, challenge CCS Rules termination. For Labour Courts,check applicable rules. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Raghubir Singh protects workmenfrom civil service rules and enforces ID Act procedure.
