(d) "The role of certifying officer is not quasi-judicial but administrative in nature.” Explain.

Understanding Administrative and Quasi-Judicial Functions

To understand the nature of a certifying officer's role, it is essential to differentiate between administrative and quasi-judicial functions:

Administrative Functions

• Definition: Administrative functions involve managing and executing an administrative program within an agency. These activities are related to the implementation of laws, policies, and regulations, often involving a degree of discretion but primarily focused on efficient governance.
• Characteristics:
  • Focus on policy implementation and routine execution.
  • Less formal procedures; not strictly bound by rules of evidence.
  • Decisions are typically forward-looking or pertain to internal management.
  • May affect rights indirectly, but not primarily concerned with resolving disputes between parties in a binding manner akin to a court.
  • Decisions are generally based on departmental policies and objectives.

Quasi-Judicial Functions

• Definition: Quasi-judicial functions are performed by administrative bodies or officials who have powers similar to a court but are not part of the judiciary. They are empowered to make decisions, enforce rules, and impose penalties in specific situations, often involving a 'lis inter partes' (dispute between parties).
• Characteristics:
  • Involves the ascertainment of facts through inquiry, hearing evidence, and applying legal principles to those facts.
  • Requires adherence to principles of natural justice (e.g., right to be heard, rule against bias).
  • Decisions are binding and directly affect the rights and liabilities of parties.
  • Often involves an element of discretion, but exercised within a legal framework to achieve justice.
  • The body acts as an impartial arbiter in a dispute.

The Role of a Certifying Officer in India

The role of a certifying officer is typically found in specific legislative frameworks, such as the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (IE(SO) Act) in India. Under this Act, a Certifying Officer (usually a Labour Commissioner or a Regional Labour Commissioner) is appointed to certify 'Standing Orders' for industrial establishments. Standing Orders define the conditions of employment of workmen in industrial establishments.

The key functions of a Certifying Officer under the IE(SO) Act, 1946, as highlighted in various legal interpretations and Section 5 and 11 of the Act, are:

• Receiving Draft Standing Orders: Employers submit draft standing orders to the Certifying Officer.
• Forwarding to Trade Unions/Workmen: The officer forwards copies of the draft to the trade union or workmen's representatives for their objections.
• Hearing Parties (Limited Scope): The officer provides an opportunity for the employer and workmen to be heard regarding the draft.
• Adjudicating Fairness and Reasonableness: Section 4 of the Act, amended in 1956, mandates the Certifying Officer to adjudicate upon the fairness or reasonableness of the provisions in the draft standing orders. This element appears to have a quasi-judicial flavor.
• Modifications and Certification: Based on the feedback and their assessment, the officer can make modifications to ensure the draft is certifiable and then certify the standing orders.
• Powers of a Civil Court (Procedural): Section 11(1) of the Act grants Certifying Officers and appellate authorities powers of a Civil Court for specific procedural purposes, such as receiving evidence, administering oaths, enforcing witness attendance, and compelling document production.
• Registration: The certified standing orders are then registered.

Why the Role is Primarily Administrative

Despite having some powers akin to a civil court for procedural matters and a duty to assess "fairness" and "reasonableness," the overall role of a Certifying Officer is considered administrative due to the following reasons:

• Nature of the Decision: The Certifying Officer's primary function is to certify a set of rules governing employment conditions. They are not resolving a specific dispute between two existing parties with opposing claims of right, which is the hallmark of a judicial or quasi-judicial function. Instead, they are ensuring that a framework of rules is fair and in conformity with the law.
• Lack of Lis Inter Partes in the Judicial Sense: While there might be objections from workmen, the Certifying Officer is not adjudicating a 'lis' in the traditional sense of a court determining legal rights and liabilities that have already arisen. Rather, they are shaping future conditions of employment.
• Procedural, Not Substantive Judicial Powers: The grant of civil court powers under Section 11(1) of the IE(SO) Act is limited to procedural aspects (like summoning witnesses, taking evidence) to facilitate their administrative inquiry into the fairness of the standing orders. It does not confer upon them the substantive powers of a civil court to deliver a final and binding judgment on contested legal rights of individuals in a typical adversary proceeding.
• Ministerial and Regulatory Focus: The role is fundamentally regulatory, ensuring compliance with statutory requirements regarding employment conditions. The officer acts as a gatekeeper, verifying that the proposed standing orders meet legal standards of fairness and reasonableness before they become legally binding.
• Objective and Policy-Oriented: While they assess fairness, their determination is more about ensuring objective compliance with labour principles and policy guidelines rather than making a subjective determination of guilt or liability between disputing individuals.
• Absence of Judicial Impartiality in Pure Sense: Although expected to act fairly, their role is often intertwined with the broader administrative objective of ensuring harmonious industrial relations, rather than solely focusing on the impartial adjudication of existing individual rights.

The Supreme Court in several pronouncements has emphasized that the mere presence of certain characteristics of a court (like hearing parties or taking evidence) does not automatically convert an administrative body into a quasi-judicial one if the core function remains administrative or regulatory.

Consider the table below for a clearer distinction:

Feature	Quasi-Judicial Function	Certifying Officer's Role (Administrative)
Nature of Inquiry	Resolution of an existing dispute (lis inter partes)	Assessment of fairness/reasonableness of proposed rules/orders
Primary Goal	Dispensing justice, determining rights/liabilities	Regulatory compliance, ensuring statutory framework
Binding Effect	Final and binding decision on contested rights	Certification of prospective rules of employment
Procedure	Formal, adherence to natural justice, rules of evidence (to an extent)	Less formal, procedural fairness, but not full adversarial trial
Powers	Substantive power to adjudicate and enforce orders	Procedural powers of civil court for inquiry, not final adjudication of disputes

Thus, while the Certifying Officer performs important duties that require a fair hearing and consideration of evidence, these are in service of an administrative objective – the certification of employment conditions – rather than the adjudication of individual legal disputes.