ENGINEERING KAMGAR UNION versus M/S. ELECTRO STEELS CASTINGS LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 301 · Decided: 16-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-r 
ENGINEERING KAMGAR UNION 
A 
v. 
MIS. ELECTRO STEELS CASTINGS LTD. AND ANR. 
APRIL 16, 2004 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 254(2): 
State Act and Central Act enacted in terms of List Ill-Inconsistency 
between laws made by both the enactments-Applicability of Article 254(2)- C 
Held: Article 254(2) is attracted when there exists direct conflict between two 
enactments-Conflict is direct not only in case where provisions of one Act 
have to be disobeyed if provisions of the other is followed and also where both 
laws lead to different legal results-Furthermore, subsequent State legislation 
having received President's assent would prevail over the Parliamentary Act D 
and in absence, the Parliament Act would prevail-On facts, State Act and 
Central Act covering same field relating to lay off. retrenchment and closure 
of undertaking and there exists a conflict between them, as such there is 
repugnancy-Hence, Article 254 (2) attracted-Section 6 V to 6X of State Act 
would prevail over Chapter VB of Central Act-Entry 22 List-II/, Seventh 
Schedule-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 25K-25S, Chapter V-B- E 
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 6V-6X 
Repugnancy-Determination of-With regard to the date of enactment 
of legislation or date of its coming into force-State Act received assent on 
10./0./983 whereas Central Act (46of1982) came into force with effect.from 
21.8.1984-Held· Article 254 does not contemplate coming into effect of a F 
law having regard to the nature of the legislation as a conditional one-
Conjlict is with regard to the law already been made-State Act which received 
Presidential assent in conflict with earlier Central Act, hence State Act would 
prevail over the Central Act-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-U.P. Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947. 
G 
Presidential assent to State Law-Application of Article 254(2)-Held: 
To arrive at finding of fact that President was actually informed about the 
reason for grant of his assent-If the same is not fulfilled then such plea 
should be raised in Writ Petition or Special Leave Petition and not at the 
301 
H 
302 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A stage of hearing for its first time as presumption exists with regard to the 
validity and legality of an official Ac~-Evidence Act, 1872-Section I 14 (e) 
and (j). 
B 
Interpretation of Statutes-Non-obstante clause-Overriding ejfect-
Discussed-lndustrial Disputes Act, 1947-U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
First respondent-industrial establishment employed more than 100 
persons in its factory. It issued notice for closure of the factory and 
termination of services of 99 workmen. Appellant-registered trade union 
challenged the validity of the notice that as more than 300 workmen are 
employed in the factory, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Central Act 
C would be applicable. Thereafter, Assistant Labour Commissioner issued 
notice to. the respondent for prosecution for contravention of section 25 of 
the Central Act. Respondent contended that as the number of employees 
in the undertaking being less than 300, no permission for closure of the 
undertaking was required in view of section 6-W read with section 6-V of 
D the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-State Act. First respondent 
filed writ petitions challenging the notice and appellant filed writ petition 
challenging the closure notice. High Court held that the State Act would 
prevail over the Central Act having regard to Article 254(2) of the 
Constitution. It allowed the writ petitions filed by first respondent; however 
dismissed the petition filed by appellant. Hence the present appeal. 
E 
Appellant-trade union contended that the rights of both the employer 
and the workmen in relation to an industrial establishment having more 
than one hundred workmen in respect of layoff, retrenchment and closure 
would be governed by sections 2SK, 25S, 250 along with 2SJ of Chapter 
V-B of the Central Act notwithstanding the State Act laying down provision 
F to .the contrary; that the provisions of Chapter V-B would be applicable 
to an industrial establishment employing more than one hundred workmen 
and the provisions of State Act would not apply to industrial establishment 
employing less than 300 workmen, but there does not exist any 
contradiction or repugnancy as it is possible to apply both the Central Act 
G and the State Act by the employer upon following the procedure l

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.