Court affirms expanded jurisdiction of Certifying Authorities to modify Standing Orders, allows Schedule additions, and invalidates retirement provisions.

The court upheld the validity of the Model Standing Orders and affirmed the expanded jurisdiction of Certifying Authorities to modify draft Standing Orders for fairness. It clarified that deviations from Model Orders are permissible if strict compliance is impracticable. The court allowed the addition of items related to employment conditions to the Schedule. However, it invalidated provisions for retirement without suitable benefits and modified compensation rules for lay-offs. Appeals to outside authorities were deemed unauthorized, leading to the striking down of relevant Standing Orders. The court partially allowed the appeal, modifying certain Standing Orders and confirming the rest.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Model Standing Orders
2. Jurisdiction of Certifying Authorities
3. Conformity with Model Standing Orders
4. Addition of Items to the Schedule
5. Age of Superannuation and Retirement Benefits
6. Payment of Compensation for Lay-off
7. Appeals to Outside Authorities

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Model Standing Orders:
The appellant contended that the Model Standing Orders followed by the certifying authorities were invalid in some material particulars. The argument was based on the premise that the Model Standing Orders should be confined to matters outside the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court rejected this contention, stating that the schemes of the two Acts are different in character. The Act aims to secure clear and unambiguous conditions of employment to avoid industrial disputes, whereas the U.P. Act deals with the settlement of industrial disputes. The court found no conflict between the two Acts.

2. Jurisdiction of Certifying Authorities:
The appellant argued that the Certifying Officer and the Appellate Authority exceeded their jurisdiction by modifying the draft Standing Orders. The court noted that the jurisdiction of these authorities was expanded in 1956 to adjudicate on the fairness and reasonableness of the Standing Orders. The court upheld the authorities' jurisdiction to examine the reasonableness or fairness of the draft Standing Orders.

3. Conformity with Model Standing Orders:
The appellant contended that the certifying authorities erred in insisting on strict conformity with the Model Standing Orders. The court clarified that Section 3(2) of the Act requires that the Standing Orders be, as far as practicable, in conformity with the model. The authorities may permit departure from the Model Standing Orders if strict compliance is impracticable. The court rejected the appellant's contention that the draft Standing Orders could include matters outside the Schedule.

4. Addition of Items to the Schedule:
The appellant objected to the addition of items 11B and 11C to the Schedule by the U.P. Government. The court held that the appropriate Government has the power to add items to the Schedule if they relate to conditions of employment. The court found that items like provident fund, gratuities, and the age of superannuation are related to conditions of employment and upheld their addition to the Schedule.

5. Age of Superannuation and Retirement Benefits:
The appellant challenged the certified Standing Order 54, which provided for retirement at the age of 55 or after 30 years of service, with a pension. The court found that the provision for pension was neither extended by the employer nor agreed upon between the parties, making it invalid. The court held that it would be unfair to introduce a retirement age without suitable retiral benefits and deleted the entire Standing Order 54.

6. Payment of Compensation for Lay-off:
The appellant challenged certified Standing Orders 29 and 30 regarding compensation for lay-off. The court modified Standing Order 29(a) to require two days' notice of closure only when possible. The court found that Standing Order 30 conflicted with Section 6K of the U.P. Act, but noted that Section 25-J of the Central Act, which deals with compensation for lay-off, would prevail. The court upheld the validity of certified Standing Order 30(a) based on the proviso to Section 25-J(1) of the Central Act.

7. Appeals to Outside Authorities:
The appellant challenged certified Standing Orders 47, 48, and 49, which provided for appeals to outside authorities. The court held that the Act does not authorize introducing Standing Orders that result in appeals to outside authorities. The court found these provisions outside the purview of the Act and invalid. The court struck down the two provisos to Standing Order 47, and Standing Orders 48 and 49.

Conclusion:
The court modified certified Standing Order 29(a) and struck down Standing Order 54, the two provisos to Standing Order 47, and Standing Orders 48 and 49. The rest of the order passed by the Appellate Authority was confirmed. The certified Standing Orders will have to be renumbered. The judgment also applied to Civil Appeal No. 1105 of 1964. There was no order as to costs in both appeals. The appeal was allowed in part.

---