BHARAT CO-OPERATIVE BANK (MUMBAI) LTD. versus CO-OPERATIVE BANK EMPLOYEES UNION

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 347 · Decided: 22-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

BHARAT CO-OPERA TNE BANK (MUMBAI) LTD. 
v. 
CO-OPERA TNE BANK EMPLOYEES UNION 
MARCH 22, 2007 
[K.G.BALAKRISHNAN,CJ.,LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA 
AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
A. 
B 
Section 2(a)-Appropriate Government-Whether Central or State C 
Government-In relation tp Multi-State Co-operative Bank carrying on 
business in more than one State-Held, State Government is the appropriate 
Government. 
Interpretation of Statutes: 
Legislation by 'reference' and 'incorporation by reference '-Jn case of 
mere reference to a provision of one statute in another without incorporation, 
unless a different intention clearly appears, would be construed as a reference 
to the provision as may be in force from time to time in the former statute 
D 
but if a provision of one statute is incorporated in another, any subsequent E 
amendment in the former statute or even its total repeal would not affect the 
provision as incorporated in the latter statute. 
The short question involved in this appeal was that for the purposes of 
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in relation to a Multi-State Co-operative 
Bank carrying on business in more than one State, which Government- F 
Central or State, is the "appropriate Government". 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD 1.1 If there is a mere reference to a provision of one statute in 
another without incorporation, then, unless a different intention clearly G 
appears, the reference would be construed as a reference to the provision as 
may be in force from time to time in the former statute. But if a provision of 
one statute is incorporated in another, any subsequent amendment in the 
former statute or even its total repeal would not affect the provision as 
incorporated in the latter statute. (Para 19] (356-F-G; 357-A] 
347 
H 
348 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
U.P. Avas Exam Vikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam & Anr., [1998] 2 SCC 
467 and P. C. Agarwala v. Payment of Wages Inspector, M P. & Ors., (2005) 
8 sec 104, relied upon. 
Wood's Estate, Ex parte Her Majesty's Commissioners of Works and 
Buildings, (1886] 31 Ch.D. 607; Secretary of State for India in Council 
B Hindustan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd., AIR (1931) PC 149; Ram 
Sarup Munshi & Ors., [1963) 3 SCR 858; Clarke v. Bradlaugh, (1881) 8 QBD 
63; Boiani Ors. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1974) 2 SCC 777; Mahindra & 
Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr., (1979) 2 SCC 529; Collector of 
Customs v. Sampathu Chetty & Anr., AIR (1962) SC 200 and Maharashtra 
C State Road Transport Corporation v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [2003) 4 
sec 200, referred to. 
1.2 When in the definition clause given in any statute the word "means" 
is used, what follows is intended to speak exhaustively. When the phrase 
"means" is used in the definition, it is a "hard and fast" definition and no 
D meaning other than that which is put in the definition can be assigned to the 
sam~. On the other hand, when the word "includes" is used -in the definition, 
the legislature does not intend to restrict the definition; makes the definition 
enumerative but not exhaustive. The term defined will retain its ordinary 
meaning but its scope would be extended to bring within it matter, which in 
its ordinary meaning may or may not comprise. (Para 22) [357-G; 358-A.:.B] 
E 
Gough v. Gough, (1891) 2 QB 665, relied upon. 
P. Kasilingam and Ors. v. P.S.G. College of Technology and Ors., AIR 
(1995) SC 1395, referred to. 
F 
2.1 The plain language of Section 2(bb) of the ID Act makes the 
intention of the legislature very clear as the use of the word "means" followed 
by the word "includes" in Section 2(bb) of the ID Act is clearly indicative of 
the legislative intent to make the definition exhaustive and would cover only 
those banking companies which fall within the purview of the definition and 
G no other. The reference to Section 5 of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 in 
the said provision, therefore, is an instance of legislation by incorporation 
and not legislation by reference. It has become its integral part and, therefore, 
subsequent amendments in the Banking Regulation Act would not have any 
effect on the expression "Banking Company" as defined in the said Section. 
[Paras 21, 22 and 24) [357-D-E; 358-B; E-F] 
H 
... • 
-
,; 
,.. -
J 
. 
-J. 
BHARAT CO-OP. BANK(MUMBAl)LTD.1•. CO-OP.BANK EMPLOYEES UNION [D. K.JAIN,J.) 349 
State of Madhya Pradesh v. M V. Narasimhan, (197512 SCC 377 and 
P. C. Agarwala v. Payment of Wages Ins
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.