I wonder of the suggestion- Standing Orders should be made to allow only co-worker in Inquiry and nobody else. It seems submission and getting certification of Standing Orders is not a joint-task but a unilateral process of Management, so that the management can put anything in them. Is it possible to prepare Standing Orders anything less than the Model S. O. prescribed by the Govt? The word "modification" should mean curtailing of rights? Will the Certifying Authority certify such S. O. which are detrimental to the workers?
We must remember that whether there are Standing Orders or certain Rules of procedure, they can not override the provisions and principles of law. In short, rules or S. O. are there to facilitate and not to restrict the provisions of law.
When the principle of natural justice has to be strictly followed in the cases of a domestic Inquiry, the procedure, rules or standing orders are to be prepared to help and facilitate the principle and not to restrict the scope of the principle.
The provisions of Standing Orders do prevail, but when? When the charge is of simple and uncomplicated nature. But, when the same is complicated, of serious nature and an ordinary man is unable to understand it and thus defend his case, then are we going to show the provisions of S. O. and reject the assistance of a legally trained person? In such circumstances, provisions of S. O. become redundant.
That's why wise Inquiry- Officer does not give much consideration or weight to such provisions of S. O and in spite of objections of management, takes proper decision depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. Here strict interpretation of S. O. is not advisable but a liberal interpretation will help in the long run.
From India, Kolhapur
241We must remember that whether there are Standing Orders or certain Rules of procedure, they can not override the provisions and principles of law. In short, rules or S. O. are there to facilitate and not to restrict the provisions of law.
When the principle of natural justice has to be strictly followed in the cases of a domestic Inquiry, the procedure, rules or standing orders are to be prepared to help and facilitate the principle and not to restrict the scope of the principle.
The provisions of Standing Orders do prevail, but when? When the charge is of simple and uncomplicated nature. But, when the same is complicated, of serious nature and an ordinary man is unable to understand it and thus defend his case, then are we going to show the provisions of S. O. and reject the assistance of a legally trained person? In such circumstances, provisions of S. O. become redundant.
That's why wise Inquiry- Officer does not give much consideration or weight to such provisions of S. O and in spite of objections of management, takes proper decision depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. Here strict interpretation of S. O. is not advisable but a liberal interpretation will help in the long run.
From India, Kolhapur
I made the suggestion because I was involved in drafting and getting certified two SO in the lines I suggested though Kerala model SO states that a workmen can be represented by an office bearer of his TU (he can be an outsider)and it is still administered.I also have seen many SO in kerala in that way.
Varghese Mathew
9961266966
From India, Thiruvananthapuram
Varghese Mathew
9961266966
From India, Thiruvananthapuram
Dear Varghese Mathew,
My intention was to comment on the attitude of many managements to narrow down or restrict the rights available or even to deny such rights given by statutes. There is more and more tendency of such nature, which I feel alarming. If we see the posts and queries on this cite, they often talk of some handmade rules and company policies, which are never put on paper or never tested to laws and times. It is for a good HR Manager to see that the right practice, procedure and fair approach in all aspects is adhered to, followed and maintained in his unit. But, the scene is not a happy one.
I appreciate that you were successful in getting the draft of S.O. duly certified by the Officer. It will always be helpful to have such suggestions for discussions due to which all will benefit.
With warm regard,
Adv. K. H. Kulkarni
From India, Kolhapur
My intention was to comment on the attitude of many managements to narrow down or restrict the rights available or even to deny such rights given by statutes. There is more and more tendency of such nature, which I feel alarming. If we see the posts and queries on this cite, they often talk of some handmade rules and company policies, which are never put on paper or never tested to laws and times. It is for a good HR Manager to see that the right practice, procedure and fair approach in all aspects is adhered to, followed and maintained in his unit. But, the scene is not a happy one.
I appreciate that you were successful in getting the draft of S.O. duly certified by the Officer. It will always be helpful to have such suggestions for discussions due to which all will benefit.
With warm regard,
Adv. K. H. Kulkarni
From India, Kolhapur
Thank you Mr Kulkarni.
From various posts in citehr I also have the same feeling.Some of the practices in the new-gen Cos are;
1.Appointment orders are not issued.
2 .Illegal bonds /terms are got signed.
3.F&F settlements, issuing of service/salary certificates ,payments of statutory dues,are not done /delayed for not complying the 'Co policy'
4 .Employees not adhering to notice periods.
5.Employers not agreeing for buy-back .leave adjustment against notice period.
Varghese Mathew
From India, Thiruvananthapuram
From various posts in citehr I also have the same feeling.Some of the practices in the new-gen Cos are;
1.Appointment orders are not issued.
2 .Illegal bonds /terms are got signed.
3.F&F settlements, issuing of service/salary certificates ,payments of statutory dues,are not done /delayed for not complying the 'Co policy'
4 .Employees not adhering to notice periods.
5.Employers not agreeing for buy-back .leave adjustment against notice period.
Varghese Mathew
From India, Thiruvananthapuram
Sec. 30 of Advocate came in to force on 15.6.2011. Parliament in its wisdom have given absolute right to advocate. Advocate shall as right to practice before any person authorized to take evidence. In departmental enquiry inquiry officer have been empowered to take evidence. Hence any provisions which bars the advocate is ultra vires to Sec. 30 of Advocate Act read with Art. 19(5) of Constitution of India. Various High Courts held that so and also held that any judgment prior to 2011 taking contrary view is negated.
From India, Pune
From India, Pune
It is question of Advocate's absolute right u/s 30 of Advocates Act. It is not the question of right to defend of charged employee.
Advocate Sachin Salunke
Ph. No. 9422016668/8421309116
, Pune-411046
From India, Pune
Advocate Sachin Salunke
Ph. No. 9422016668/8421309116
From India, Pune
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Employee Appraisal Form new.doc