LexAIR INDIA versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
AIR INDIA v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS JULY 18, 1995 [AM. AHMADI, C.J. AND S.P. BHARUCHA, J.] Administrative Law:- Repeal of an Act-Saving of Subordinate legislation made under the Repealed Act-Subordinate legislation made under the repealed Act would cease to be effective in the absence of a saving clause in the repealing Act. Service Law:- A B c Air Corporation Act, 1953-S.45-Air India employees Service Regula- tions framed thereunder-Repeal of the Act of Air Corporation (Transfer of D Undertakings and Repeal) Act, 1994--Regulations framed under the Repealed Act-Whether cease to exist-Held: Yes. The Appellant Air India was established under the Air Corporation Act, 1953 vide Section 45 of which the Air India Employees Service Regula- tions were framed. The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, Delhi cer- E tified the standing orders despite the Appellant's objection. The Appellant challenged the Certification before the High Court but was not successful. Being aggrieved by the High Court's Judgment, the Appellant preferred the present Special Leave Petition. On behalf of the Respondents it was contended that by reason of section 11 of the Air Corporation (Transfer of Undertaking and Repeal) Act, 1994, the Air Corporation Act, 1953 stood repealed; the regulations framed under Section 45 of the repealed Act, no longer survived and the appellant's bid to avert certification also disappeared. On behalf of the appellant it was contended that th:! said Regulations were saved by Section 8 of the 1994 Act. Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, this Court F G HELD : 1. If subordinate legislation is to survive the repeal of its H 175 176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A parent statute, the repealing statute must say so in so many words, and by mentioning the title of the subordinate legislation. [179-G] B c D E 2. Section 8 of the Air Corporation (Transfer of Undertakings and Repeal) Act, 1994 does not in express terms save the Air India Employees Service Regulations but only protects the remuneration, terms and condi· tions and rights and privileges of those who were in the appellant's employ- ment when the 1994 Act came into force on 29th January, 1994. Thus, the said Regulations ceased to be effective from that date. [179-H, 180-B] Watson v. Winch, [1916] 1 K.B. 668, relied on. Bennion on Statutory Interpretation 2nd Edition P.P. 494-495, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6392 of 1992. From the Judgment and Order dated 27.8.90 of the Delhi High Court in C.W. No. 637 of 1988. Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solicitor General, F.S. Nariman, Ms. Indira Jaising, Jitendra Sharma, Lalit Bhasin, Ms. Nina Gupta, Ms. Kiran, Mr. Niraj Sharma, Vineet Kumar, S. Sinha, M.N. Shroff, Ms. G. Dara, P. Gaur, C.V.S. Rao, R.P. Srivastava, Adish C. Aggarwal, S.N. Terdol and K.R. Nagaraja for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F BHARUCHA, J. Special leave granted. The appeal impugns a judgment of the Delhi High Court. The appellant is Air India. Air India was established under the Air Corporations Act, 1953. G Under the provisions of Section 45 thereof, the Air India Employees Service Regulations, 1963, were framed with the consent of the Central Government. The said Regulations governed the terms and conditions of service of Air India's employees, in or about the year 1982 the Deputy . Chief Labour Commissioner, Delhi, initiated proceedings against Air H India under the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) · AIR INDIA v. U.O.I. [BHARUCHA, J.] 177 Act, 1946, for certification of Standing Orders. Air India contended that A the Standing Orders Act did not apply to it. The contention was rejected and Standing Orders were certified. Air India's appeal was rejected. Air India then filed the writ petition upon which the order under appeal was passed. The High Court held that the Standing Orders Act was a special Act and applied to Air India's employees. The Air Corporations (Transfer of Undertakings & Repeal) Act, 1994 came into force on 29th January 1994. By reason of Section 11 thereof the Air corporations Act, 1953, stands repealed from that day, Based upon this, Ms. Jaisinh, appearing for Air India's employees, has raised a conten- tion that goes to the root. Air India's case had been that its employees' terms and conditions of service were governed by the said Regulations framed under
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.