The untraceability of an important document like the original CSO and the tough legal resistance put forth by the delinquent employees on this score indicate only the messy handling of the HR Department of the organization and give rise to the following pertinent questions automatically in such a situation:
(1) The copies of the originally certified S.O would have been immediately sent to the unions participated in the certification process by the Certifying Officer. Whether the Management took any steps to verify with such unions?
(2) What prevents the Management from applying for recertification, if the untraceability of the original is authenticated by the Certifying Officer and till then apply the provisions of the Model Standing Orders applicable if both are not contradictory to each other?
If "no" is the answer to the above questions, there is a possibility of some reasonable doubts that the Management wantonly tries to hide some failure on its part to amend the original in accordance with some subsequent material changes like the change of the name of the Company, classification of workmen, list of misconducts, and the like. Otherwise, why is the questioner so much worried about the inquiry being declared null and void just because of the Management's inability to provide the copy of the original CSO? After all, whether the year of certification was 1963 or some other, no disciplinary inquiry violative of the Principles of Natural Justice which remains the same would be approved by the Certifying Officer.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
6185(1) The copies of the originally certified S.O would have been immediately sent to the unions participated in the certification process by the Certifying Officer. Whether the Management took any steps to verify with such unions?
(2) What prevents the Management from applying for recertification, if the untraceability of the original is authenticated by the Certifying Officer and till then apply the provisions of the Model Standing Orders applicable if both are not contradictory to each other?
If "no" is the answer to the above questions, there is a possibility of some reasonable doubts that the Management wantonly tries to hide some failure on its part to amend the original in accordance with some subsequent material changes like the change of the name of the Company, classification of workmen, list of misconducts, and the like. Otherwise, why is the questioner so much worried about the inquiry being declared null and void just because of the Management's inability to provide the copy of the original CSO? After all, whether the year of certification was 1963 or some other, no disciplinary inquiry violative of the Principles of Natural Justice which remains the same would be approved by the Certifying Officer.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The missing original CSO of 1963 is not uncommon, as is the case of original documents of the type written area where you could have only limited sets of them. The sheer wear and tear of them in the nearly five and a half decades would practically render them illegible or unfit to use. There have been many instances where interested employees could play some dirty trick and try to take advantage of it. But for argument's sake, even if the CSO is missing, if the inquiry is conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, then it may not be held as vitiated by the court. More or less, all SO contain very similar provisions, and the requirement of principles of natural justice is standard and is known to all. So for the reason that the original CSO could not be produced may not vitiate the inquiry. There is case law available stating that quoting of wrong rules will not vitiate the inquiry so long as the misconduct is properly mentioned and the procedure is followed.
Since you have not been able to trace the original CSO, try to update the SO by adding the new provisions (like the payment of subsistence allowance, fixed-term appointment, prevention of sexual harassment measures) and apply for recertification.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Since you have not been able to trace the original CSO, try to update the SO by adding the new provisions (like the payment of subsistence allowance, fixed-term appointment, prevention of sexual harassment measures) and apply for recertification.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Ijaj ji,
My short and sweet answer to your query is that you should follow as per the certified SO. Get the SO recertified immediately.
Thank you.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
My short and sweet answer to your query is that you should follow as per the certified SO. Get the SO recertified immediately.
Thank you.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Sir,
You have the option to issue a fresh charge sheet under Model Standing Orders and proceed with the enquiry. If you proceed, it will also amount to contempt of court as the directions are not followed. Before the Court, you can file an application that a fresh charge sheet is issued, hence the complaint can be disposed of. In one of my client companies, we did the same, and the enquiry was conducted de novo. Ultimately, the matter was settled.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You have the option to issue a fresh charge sheet under Model Standing Orders and proceed with the enquiry. If you proceed, it will also amount to contempt of court as the directions are not followed. Before the Court, you can file an application that a fresh charge sheet is issued, hence the complaint can be disposed of. In one of my client companies, we did the same, and the enquiry was conducted de novo. Ultimately, the matter was settled.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From the above posts, two things clearly emerge for the immediate action to be taken from your end:
1) Proceed with the inquiry and hold the disciplinary action part until CSO is authenticated.
2) Parallel action has to be taken to get the CSO draft registered.
3) In the meantime, if you can locate the evidence for distributing the previous standing order with the acknowledgment of the union, it will benefit you greatly.
V. Raghunathan
Chennai
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
1) Proceed with the inquiry and hold the disciplinary action part until CSO is authenticated.
2) Parallel action has to be taken to get the CSO draft registered.
3) In the meantime, if you can locate the evidence for distributing the previous standing order with the acknowledgment of the union, it will benefit you greatly.
V. Raghunathan
Chennai
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Engage with peers to discuss and resolve work and business challenges collaboratively - share and document your knowledge. Our AI-powered platform, features real-time fact-checking, peer reviews, and an extensive historical knowledge base. - Join & Be Part Of Our Community.
DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS PROCEDURE.xls
Company Profile.ppt