( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 directed against the award of the Dist, Judge and Ex-Officio Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mandya, made in MIS (IDA) No. 4 of 1971. ( 2 ) THE facts leading up to the petition are these: The workman Devaraju in the Pandayapura, Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd, met with an accident on 28-9-1967. He was admitted in the K. R. Hospital, Mysore. On 29-9-1967 he made a leave application asking the Management to grant ieave. He did not specify the duration for which leave was required. Apparently, the management did no,t take any action on that application. On 9-10-1967 he again made another leave application asking for three months' leave with effect from 29-9-1967. On 25-10-1967 the Management informed the workman that it has sanctioned leave without pay up to 30 days as per Standing Order No. 12 (c) (3) commencing from 29-9-1967 to 28-10-1967. It was made clear in that Memo that the Management was not in a position to sanction leave beyond that period as the same was not permissible under the Standing Order. It was further madia clear that if the workman remained absent even after 28-10-1967, his case would' be! dealt with as per Standing Order No. 14 (2 ). The workman could not report to duty after 28-10-1967 as he was still in the hospital. It was only on 20-11-1967 he, was discharged from the hospital with an advice to take rest for a couple of months thereafter. On 8-12-1967 the Management issued a Memo stating that the workman was treated as having left the service with effact from 29-10-1967. Thia Memo appears to have, not bjeen actually served on the workman. He, however, made an application on 27-12-1967 asking for extension of leave up to 20-1-1968. In reply to the said application, the Management issued a further Memo dt. 16-1-1968 stating that the question of extension of leave did not arise a,s he had already lost his lien on the appointment held by him. It was further stated that since the workman did not turn up to duty, as directed earlier, his absence from 29-10-1967 was treated as unauthorised and he was treated as having left the service as per Standing Order No. 14 (2 ). It was further stated that since the workman did not turn up to duty, as directed earlier, his absence from 29-10-1967 was treated as unauthorised and he was treated as having left the service as per Standing Order No. 14 (2 ). ( 3 ) ON the refusal of the Management to take the workman to duty, the petitioner-Union to take up his cause, which gave rise, to an industrial dispute. The Govt by their Order dt. 22-12-1970, referred the, dispute, to the Labour Court for Adjudication on the, following points: i. (a) Is the Management of Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare, Karkhana Ltd, pandavapura (Mysore State) justified in terminating the service of the workman. Sri C. M. Devaraju, with effect from 29th Oct 1967? (b) If not, what relief is the workman entitled to? ( 4 ) BEFORE the Labour Court, It was contended by the Union, that the action of the Management in refusing leave was neither legal nor bona fide, and also, not justified in terms of the Standing Orders. It was also urged that there was sufficient ground for the workman to remain absent from duty since he was hospitalised till 20-11-1967 and the order of the management stating that he has lost his lien on the post was made by way of punishment without an, enquiry and therefore it should, be set aside,. ( 5 ) ON behalf of the Management, the contention, among others, was that the workman was granted the maximum leave permissible to him under the relevant Standing Orders and since he remained absent after the expiry of the leave, he lost his lien automatically by the operation of standing Order NO-14 (2 ). The Management denied the allegations of victimisation and unfair treatment to the workman. ( 6 ) THE Labour Court on considering the evidence, on record, came to the conclusion that the service, of the workman has not been terminated for any misconduct; that -the Management has acted fairly; that it has granted him all the leave available to his credit and it was beyond the powers of up Management to grant him any more leave, beyond thirty days. It further held that the workman has lost his lien on his post automatically by the operation of Standing Order No. 14 (2 ). It further held that the workman has lost his lien on his post automatically by the operation of Standing Order No. 14 (2 ). It has also found fault with the workman for having not approached the; Management immediately after the expiry of the leave granted to him. ( 7 ) BEFORE met, Mr. Narasimhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, firstly contended that the case of the workman did not fall under Standing order 14 (2), since the leave which he applied for was not provided tinder Standing Order No. 12. According to him, there was no provision for granting sick leave; under the said Standing Order and therefore the, management could not have treated the workman as having lost his lien or the expiry of 30 days' leave granted to him, ( 8 ) IT is difficult to accept the contention. It is true that Standing order No. 12 does not specifically provide, for the grant of sick leave, nor was it the case; of the Management that the leave granted to the workman was a sick leave. The, lands of leave provided for under Standing Order no. 12 are: (i) Casual leave for 10 days In tha year; (ii) Annual leave with wages and (iii) Leave without pay up to 30 days. It is not known under what category the leave without pay up to 30 days was provided for. It seems to me, as contended by Mr. V. L. Narasimha Murthy, learned counsel for the Management, that the said leave also included sick leave and that was all the workmen have bargained for at the time of certifying the Standing Orders. The workman, therefore, was not entitled to any other leave, which has not been provided by the Standing Orders. ( 9 ) STANDING Order No. 14 (2) provides as follows :"a workman remaining absent beyond the period of leave originally sanctioned or subsequently extended shall be liable to lose his lien on his appointment unless he returns within ten days of the expiry of the sanctioned leave end explains to. tha satisfaction of the authority granting the leave his inability to return immediately on the expiry of the leave. A workman not reporti for dutv within ten days of the expiry of the leave shall be treated as having left service from the dafte on which has was due to return to work. tha satisfaction of the authority granting the leave his inability to return immediately on the expiry of the leave. A workman not reporti for dutv within ten days of the expiry of the leave shall be treated as having left service from the dafte on which has was due to return to work. "there is no dispute in this case that the workman was granted the maximum leave permissible undter Standing Order No. 12 and he remained absent after the expiry of the said leave. Therefore. Standing Order no. 14 (2) was immediately attracted to his case, by the operation of which, he lost his lien on his appointment. The question is, whether the labour Court could go beyond the terms of the certified Standing Orders and ask the Management to grant the workman more leave in the circumstances of the case. ( 10 ) THE certified Standing Orders become part of statutory terms and conditions of service between the workman and his employer and they shall govern the relationship between them. See Workmen in Buckingham and Carnatic Mills v. B and C Mills, 1970 1 LLJ. 26. . If Standing Ordar 14 (2) was applicable to the case of the workman, about which I have no, doubt, the workman shall be liable to lose his lien on his appointmtnt unless he returns within 10 days of the expiry of the sanctioned leave. Admittedly, he did not return to duty within the said period. The Management was therefore, justified in holding that he has lost his lien. Similar view was also taken by the Supreme Court in National tfnjrfntering industries Ltd v. Hinuman, AIR. 1968 SC. 33. . In this context, a reference to the decision in Indian Iron and Steed Co. Ltd v. Their Workmen, AIR 1058 SC. 130 at 136. may be made. In that case, some workmen were absent without leave for 14 consecutive days. They could not report to duty as they were taten in custody by the Police and they remained in the lock-up for sometime. When they were in custody, they applied for leave, but the leave was refused. The relevant Standing Order governing the conditions of service of those workmen was that if any one remained absent for 14 consecutive days without permission, he would be automatically discharged. When they were in custody, they applied for leave, but the leave was refused. The relevant Standing Order governing the conditions of service of those workmen was that if any one remained absent for 14 consecutive days without permission, he would be automatically discharged. Relying upon the said Standing Order, the Management treated the workmen as having bees automatically discharged. Commeriting cm the validity of the order of discharge, the Supreme Court observed :"it is true that the arrested men were not in a position to coma to their work, because they had been arrested by the Police. This may be unfortunate for them; but it would be unjust to hold that in such circumstances the Company must always give leave when an application for leave is made. If a large number of workmen are arrested by the authorities in charge of law and order by reason of their questionable activities in connection with a labour dispute, as in this case, the work of the Company will be paralysed if the Company is forced to give leave to. all of them for a more or less indefinite period. Such a principle will not be just; nor will it restore harmony between labour and capital or ensure normal flow of production. It is immaterial whethen the charges on which the workmen are arrested by the Police are ultjmatelv proved or not in a Court of law. The Company must carry on its work and may find it impossible to do so if a large number of workman are absent Whether in such circitmstances leave should be granted or not must be left to the discretion of the employer. "tn thf above case, the workmen were refused leave which they were entitled to. But. in the case on hand the workman had no leave to his credit and the Management therefore, could not be found fault with for not granting him more leave. ( 11 ) THE certified Standing Orders, as observed by the Supreme Coiut in Buckingham and Carnitic Co Ltd v, Venkaraiah, AIR. 1964 SC. 1272 represent the rel:- vsrt terms pnd condijions of service in a statutory form and they are binding on the parties at least as much, if not more, as private contracts embodying similar terms and conditions: of service. 1964 SC. 1272 represent the rel:- vsrt terms pnd condijions of service in a statutory form and they are binding on the parties at least as much, if not more, as private contracts embodying similar terms and conditions: of service. The Labour Court therefore, could not have ignored tho conditions of service of the workman by treating his case as an excemption to the Standing Orders. If the petitioner union was not satisfied with the kinds of leave provided for under the standing Orders, it is up to it to agitate for a change in the terms of the standing Orders. But, so long as the Standing Orders continue to remaines binding terms between the parties, it is not open to any party to contend to the contrary. ( 12 ) IT was next contended by Sri Narasimhan that the Labour Court ought to have confined tfs enquiry on the points of dispute referred to it and one of the points being "whether the Management was justified in terminating the services of the workman" and therefore, it could not have gone into the other questions. ( 13 ) I do not think that the Labour Court has committed any error. The substance of the dispute has to be gone into by the Labour Court and not the mere form of it. The real dispute betwqen the parlies was whether the workman under the relevant Standing Orders has automatically lost his lien on his remaining absent after the expiry of the leave, or whether the Management terminal his service. In examining these questions, the Labour Court has to consider all the facts and the circumstances of the dispute. It has been now well established in series of cases of The supreme Court that an Industrial Court can go into the question of tha validity of the action complained of and it could examine whether it has been passed for ulterior motives and is not in bona fide exercise of the power arising out of the contract. See Management of Brookce Bond India (P) Ltd v. Y. K. Gautam, AIR. 1973 SC. 2634 ( 14 ) THE Labour Court in the instant case has considered all the fact and circumstances of the case, and it has held that the action of the Management was in the bona fide epcercise of the power arising out of the contract. See Management of Brookce Bond India (P) Ltd v. Y. K. Gautam, AIR. 1973 SC. 2634 ( 14 ) THE Labour Court in the instant case has considered all the fact and circumstances of the case, and it has held that the action of the Management was in the bona fide epcercise of the power arising out of the contract. The conclusion of the Labour Court was reached on the consideration of relevant evidence on recprd I do npt find any error of jurisdiction in the award calling for interference under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Const. ( 15 ) IN the, result, the petition fails and is dismissed; but in the circumstances, i make no order as to costs. --- *** --- .