Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Standing Orders of the company applied to the respondent and, if they did, whether the termination of his service in accordance with those Standing Orders was valid.
Analysis: The Standing Orders were framed and approved under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and the local industrial disputes settlement law. The definition of "employees" in the Standing Orders, read in the context of the whole scheme, was held to include all persons employed in the specified departments of the company, not merely those to whom tickets had been issued. The words referring to names and ticket numbers in the departmental muster were treated as applicable only where tickets existed, and not as a condition precedent to employee status. The distinction drawn in the Standing Orders between "employees" and "workmen" showed that every employee was not necessarily a workman. Since the respondent was within the class of employees covered by the Standing Orders, the employer was entitled to act under Standing Order 16(1), and no separate misconduct penalty under Standing Order 18 was attracted.
Conclusion: The Standing Orders applied to the respondent and the termination of his service was valid under Standing Order 16(1).