Judgment :- The Tamil Nadu Planters Association has sought for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in I.E.S.O.A.No.2/88 and to quash the order dated 31.10.1994 in so far as it relates to amendment to Clause 4(a) and Clause 18 of the Standing Orders. 2. The dispute in this writ petition relates to the amendments carried out to the Standing Orders for Estate Workmen in Tamil Nadu in respect of the estates mentioned in Annexure-A to the impugned order. Clause 4(a) pertains to the definition of permanent workmen. Prior to the impugned amendment, Clause 4(a) was as follows: "4(a) 'Permanent Workmen' is one who is either engaged on a permanent basis or one who is confirmed as a permanent workman on satisfactory completion of a probationary period which may, at the discretion of the employer, extend upto a period of twelve months provided he is certified as physically fit by the Employer's Medical Officer. " 3. At the instance of the Trade Union, an amendment was sought for, for the said clause by adding a proviso to the effect that once the Estate Medical Officer certifies a person as physically unfit, he will be referred to the District Medical Officer whose decision will be taken as final for the said purpose. In case the District Medical Officer certifies that the person was physically fit, the expenses charged by the Officer will be met by the employer and if the Officer certifies him as physically unfit, the expenses will be met by the workman. 4. Likewise, an amendment was sought for with reference to Clause 18 also dealing with termination of employment. In terms of the said clause, the employment of any workman with not less than one year of continuous service may be terminated for a reasonable cause by one month's notice or one month's wages in lieu of notice and that the reasons for the termination shall be recorded in writing and shall be communicated to the workman at the time of discharge. 5. The Unions sought for an amendment of the said Clause requiring an opportunity to be given to the workman against the reasons for the proposed termination before passing an order of termination. 6. 5. The Unions sought for an amendment of the said Clause requiring an opportunity to be given to the workman against the reasons for the proposed termination before passing an order of termination. 6. The second respondent being the appropriate authority, after hearing the parties on 20.11.1987, passed orders approving amendments including the amendments as sought for by the Unions to Clauses 4(a) and 18 of the Standing Orders. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner Association filed an appeal before the first respondent. However, the order of the original authority was confirmed by the first respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the Planters Association have come forward with the above writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Management had raised the following contentions: (i) As regards the amendment sought for amending Clause 4(a) providing an appeal to the District Medical Officer, learned counsel contended that there was absolutely no necessity to complicate the process of requirement of a proper Medical Certificate. When the Estate Doctor/Surgeon was competent enough to certify as per the existing Standing Order requiring certification, there was no necessity to bring in a further authority, that too a third party/outsider, to interfere with the process of assessment of health conditions of the employees, which was purely an internal affair. (ii) Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in ROHTAK & HISSAR DISTRICTS ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. Vs. STATE OF U.P. ( 1966 (II) LLJ 330 ). In that case, the Supreme Court was confronted with the scope of amendments to the Standing Orders and the question which arose for consideration was whether the Standing Orders were in conformity with the model standing orders and whether they were reasonable and fair. One of the amendments accepted by the authorities was called in question before the Supreme Court on the ground that the amended standing order resulted in introducing appeals to outside authorities and hence, not valid. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, while dealing with the said contention, held that the Standing Orders are intended to regulate the conditions of service of the employees and in that behalf, they may legitimately make provisions concerning the rights and liabilities of the parties and their enforcement by an internal arrangement which can be regarded as a domestic arrangement between the employer and his employees. The Supreme Court proceeded further and held that it was not permissible under the Act to introduce appeals to outside authorities and thereby extend or conflict with the scope of the provisions of the main Act. (iii) In the context of amendment to Standing Order 4(a), learned counsel contended that till date, there has been no complaint of any wrong decision by any of the Estate Doctors and hence, the attempt on the part of the Unions to introduce the new Forum for certifying the health of the employees was unreasonable and was quite unnecessary. (iv) In the context of amendment to Clause 18, learned counsel contended that the need to provide opportunity to the employee was beyond the scope of the duties of the Management in the matter of terminating the services of the employees who have not become permanent. Law does not require such an opportunity to be given. Giving opportunity would also mean that there should be an enquiry and follow-up action, which is not required to be complied with in the case of an employee who has not become a permanent member of the service. The approved amendment virtually amounts to affecting the rights of the Management. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents raised objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on two grounds. Firstly, according to the respondents, the Association cannot properly represent the case of the members, as each Management was entitled to accept or not to accept the amendment and hence, the writ petition filed by the Association cannot be entertained. Secondly, the petitioner Association was not a registered Association and hence, cannot be permitted to represent the other estates in a representative capacity. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents further contends that the amendment under Clause 4(a) was introduced only for the protection of the workers, as it was always feared that the Estate Doctor being an employee of the Management itself, is likely to oblige the Management in the event of the Management wanting to terminate the services of an employee whom the Management does not like. The amended regulation will not, in any way, affect the rights of the Management. 10. Learned counsel also sought to distinguish the judgment of the Constitution Bench referred to above and relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The amended regulation will not, in any way, affect the rights of the Management. 10. Learned counsel also sought to distinguish the judgment of the Constitution Bench referred to above and relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In that case, the issue which arose for consideration was regarding the termination of service which cannot be applied to the present case. In as much as a Forum was provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, the Supreme Court held that it was not reasonable or proper to designate outside authorities as appellate authorities. Such an action was not permissible under the Act to enable the parties file appeals before outside authorities. Therefore, the said decision will not apply to the facts of the present case. 11. I have considered the submissions of both sides. 12. In the context of the amendment carried out to Clause 4(a), the objection by the Management is two fold. Firstly, the Estate Doctor was a qualified person and therefore, when once the Estate Doctor expresses his opinion, it would not be desirable nor is there any need to go in for confirmation from some other official who is not connected with the establishment. The Supreme Court has held that resort to outside authorities will be impermissible. The said observation came to be made by the Supreme Court only in the background of the issue being one relating to termination of permanent workmen. Relief was available under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and hence, it was not necessary to introduce another hierarchy of appellate authorities, that too by strangers. Therefore, I am inclined to hold that the said decision will not apply to the present case where the need for a second opinion is envisaged under the amended standing order. 13. As regards validity of the said amendment, the further contention which was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that for the past several years, there have been no instance of any mala fide refusal to issue certificate of fitness and hence, there was absolutely no need to introduce any clause and thereby create distrust or problems between each other. I have considered the objection of the petitioner in the background of the judgment of the Supreme Court, and as stated earlier, the Supreme Court was dealing with the nature and extent to which a standing order could be formulated without being violative of the provisions of the Statute. In this case, the requirement enabling the employees to go before the District Medical Officer cannot be stated to be either in conflict with the provisions of the Act or as amounting to entrusting the dispute to a third party or outsider. If the District Medical Officer is notified as one of the recognised officers under the Act and Rules, then the said officer cannot be treated as an outsider. 14. A perusal of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Plantations Labour Act and the Rules made thereunder would disclose that the requirement of approaching the District Medical Officer cannot be construed to be opposed to the scope of a standing order. Section 7 of the Plantations Labour Act, 1951 deals with Certifying Surgeons and enables the State Government to appoint qualified Medical Practitioners to be certifying Surgeons for the purpose of the Act. Under Sub Section (2), the Certifying Surgeon shall carry out such duties as may be prescribed in connection with the examination and certification of workers. Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Plantations Labour Rules prescribes the Civil Surgeon to be the appellate authority and an appeal will lie against the finding of the Estate-Doctor to the Civil Surgeon of the area in which the plantation was situated. 15. Apart from the said provisions under the Plantations Labour Act and the Rules, it is also seen that Clause 17 of the Standing Orders dealing with "Medical examination" relating to permanent workmen stipulates under Sub Clause (iii) that in the event of a discharge of a workman on account of his being found physically unfit, the order of discharge shall be rescinded if the worker produces a certificate of fitment from the District Medical Officer of the District within a period of one month from the date of discharge. Therefore, the concept of entrusting the certification of medical fitness to outside Doctors is not a new phenomenon and thus, cannot be treated as entrusting appellate jurisdiction to an outsider. Therefore, I do not find any error in the order of the respondents having approved the amendment to Clause 4(a). Therefore, the concept of entrusting the certification of medical fitness to outside Doctors is not a new phenomenon and thus, cannot be treated as entrusting appellate jurisdiction to an outsider. Therefore, I do not find any error in the order of the respondents having approved the amendment to Clause 4(a). The fact that till now there was no occasion of any complaint against Estate Doctors cannot be a bar for the workers to bargain for better service conditions, as long as the demand is not illegal or impermissible. 16. As regards the amendment sought for in respect of Clause 18 also, all that is sought to be introduced is that the employer, before terminating the services, shall give opportunity on the reasons for the termination. The said requirement is intended only to protect the interests of the workers and to avoid abuse of the power to terminate the services by the Management. I am also inclined to agree that the said requirement cannot, in any manner, prejudice the rights of the Management to terminate the services of the employee for a just and proper reason. No further enquiry is contemplated and hence, I am unable to sustain the contention of the Management that any valuable right of the Management is taken away by the requirement of the Management to give opportunity for the worker for stating his views on the reasons for termination. When once it is agreed that an order of termination could be issued only for justifiable reasons, there can be any impediment or objection for the Management to give an opportunity to the worker to make his representation on the reasons for termination. The Management may or may not be inclined to accept the explanation by the worker. But it gives satisfaction to the worker that he has an opportunity to state his views. As I had already expressed, no further enquiry being contemplated, the Management cannot complain of any prejudice. Therefore, in the context of the amendment approved in respect of Clause 18 also, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the authorities/respondents. With the result, there are no merits in the above writ petition. The same is dismissed.