CASE DETAILS v. K. SURI BABU

create a balance – The protection of the 1946 Act, cannot be denied to a workman merely for the reason that the employer grants him other services benefi ts such as pension, gratuity etc. under CCA Rules – A standing order is no ordinary order – It has a statutory mandate – CCA Rules, 1965 are the general Rules whereas Standing Orders are the Special Rules and will override any other general Rule including CCA Rules, 1965 – Moreover, the Standing Orders cover a wide area of activities of a workman and are workmen specifi c yet in view of s.13B of 1946 Act, a specifi c notifi cation can be made applying CCA Rules, 1965 to that specifi c aspect – But a notifi cation is necessary – In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that after the standing orders, which stood certifi ed in the year 1973 and were in force, any subsequent modifi cation was made or any order passed curtailing these standing orders, u/s.10 of the 1946 Act – In the absence of notifi cation u/s.13B of the 1946 Act, there is no fault with the order of the High Court holding that it will be the standing orders and not the CCA Rules, 1965 which will be applicable – Service conditions of respondents will be governed by the Standing Orders as far as the disciplinary proceedings are concerned – Order passed by the High Court upheld – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Service Law. [Paras 7, 8, 11, 17, 18, 20 and 21] Service Law – Special Rules vis-à-vis General Rules – Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 vis-à-vis Central Civil Services (Classifi cation, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965: Held: Standing Orders have the nature of Special Rules – Only in those cases, where the Special Rules fail to lay down provisions for dealing with certain subjects, can the General Rules be pressed into service – The CCA Rules are General Rules which apply to all Government Servants – In the present case, when the Standing Orders for the Department clearly laid down a procedure to be followed in cases of Disciplinary proceedings under Order Nos.

38, 39 & 40, there was no reason for the Department to initiate the said proceedings under the CCA Rules – NFC, Hyderabad failed to place on record any modifi cation made u/s.10 of the 1946 Act to show that the Standing Orders certifi ed for NFC-Hyderabad would not be applicable to the respondent. [Paras 19, 20] 1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 15 S.C.R. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 – Objective and purpose – Discussed. LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES