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 to apply 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 change of the name of the Company, classification of workmen, list of misconducts and the like. Otherwise, why the questioner is so much worried about the enquiry to be declared as 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 enquiry violative of the Principles of Natural Justice which remains the same would be approved by the Certifying Officer.
(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 to apply 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 change of the name of the Company, classification of workmen, list of misconducts and the like. Otherwise, why the questioner is so much worried about the enquiry to be declared as 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 enquiry violative of the Principles of Natural Justice which remains the same would be approved by the Certifying Officer.