Certified standing orders may validly limit domestic enquiry representation to a co-employee, excluding outside union office-bearers.

Certified standing orders, once finally brought into force under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, govern representation in domestic enquiries. The law does not recognise an absolute natural justice right for a workman to be represented by a person of choice in disciplinary proceedings; any such right depends on statute, service rules, or standing orders. A restriction limiting representation to a co-employee of the same establishment was treated as rational, since the representative would be familiar with workplace conditions and service rules. The restriction was therefore valid, and representation by a non-employee trade union office-bearer was not permitted.

---

---

Issues: Whether a workman facing disciplinary proceedings has a right to be represented by a trade union office-bearer who is not an employee of the establishment, and whether certified standing orders may validly restrict representation to a fellow employee of the same establishment.

Analysis: Under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, model standing orders operate only until standing orders are finally certified and brought into force. The statute permits certification of standing orders through the prescribed procedure, and once certified they govern the employment relationship. The law does not confer an absolute right of representation in domestic enquiries as part of natural justice. Such a right exists only to the extent allowed by statute, service rules, or standing orders. The standing orders in question still preserved representation through another employee, but confined the choice to a co-employee of the same establishment. That limitation was treated as rational because a co-employee would be familiar with the establishment's conditions and service rules, and the restriction did not destroy the basic feature of representation.

Conclusion: The restriction was valid, and the workman had no right to be represented by a non-employee trade union office-bearer.

---