LexM. L. MANCHANDA & ORS. versus UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
327 M. L. MANCHANDA & ORS. v. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH & ORS. March, 17, 1977 [V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] Punjab. Industrial Housing Rules, 1972, R.4(3), whether ultra vires the Pun- jab Industrial Housing Act, 1956-Whetlur operates retrospectively. A B The appellants and respondents Nos. 3 tQ 37 herein, were allottees of house3 in Chandigarh constructed by the State Government for low paid industrial C workers under the Industrial Housing Scheme subsidised by the Central Gov- ernment. The Labour Inspector, Union Territciry, Chandigarh gave them notices i.n terms of the proviso to rule· 4(3) of the Punjab Industrial Housirfg Rules, 1956, as' amended vide Notification dated November 7, 1972, to show cause why their allotments should not be cancelled. The income· of each of them exceeded Rs. 350/ - per mensem, which disentitled them to retain their allotments. The appellants and the· said respondents filed a joint petition in the High Court for a writ to quash the amendment to rule 4, and to restrain the Government from cancelling their allotments and evicting them. The writ peti- D tion was dismissed. The appellants contended firstly, that rule 4(3) was ultra vires the Punjab Industrial Housing Act, 1956 as it took out industrial workers with income exceeding Rs. 350/- p.m. from the scope of section 2(e) of the Act which defines industrial workers; and secondly, that the authority compe- tent to make. rules u/s. 24 of the- Act cannot frame rules having retrospective effect, and as the amended rule- 4(3) operates retrospectively it is invalid. Dismissing the appeal by special leave, the Court, E HELD: ( 1) The allotment of accommodation to an industrial worker is not un- conditional but is subject to conditions which can be changed unilatera1ly by the Government from time to thne by altering the rules in exercise' of the powers conferred on it under section 24 of the Act. Section 24 specifically em- F powers the State Government to make rules to provide inter aliaJor the manner of allotment of accommodation and conditions relating to its occupation. The impugned amendment which squarely falls within the purview of the aforesaid provisions of section 24, was validly made, and was not ultra vires. [331 G~H. 331 (a)·Cl (2) Section 7 of the Act embodies a deeming provision and gives a man- date to treat a person as an unauthorised occupant not only if he ceases to be an industrial worke·r under the Act, but also if being an allotteo, he ceases tOi fulfil any ?f the .Pr~scribed conditions then in force, including the one relating to the hm1t of his rncome, and thereby becomes amenable to action under sec- tion 9(2) of the Act. [33J(a)·A·B] G (3) The proviso to rule 4(3) clearly shows that the allotment of an indus· trial ':vorker whose income exceeds Rs. 350/- per mensem is to stand cancelled not from the date whe11 his income started exceeding Rs. 350 /· per mensem H but ~n the expiry of one month's notiee in writing of the cancellation. The rule IS not mtended to operate retrospectively on industrial worke<s who had been allotted and were in occupation of industrial houses immediately before' 328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1977] 3 S.C.P. A the amendment of the Punjab Industrial Housing (Chandigarh First Amend- ment) Rules, 1972. [33l(a) E-F] B c D E F G H The Court observed:- The scheme being meant for the benefit of the low paid industrial workers and the number of th_e_ houses constructed thereunder being very limited, the Gove~ment could leg1ttmately evolve the method which it did, to- disentitle industnal workers whose monthly income was relatively large, to retain the houses. [33J(a)-C-D] CivIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1744 of 1976. (Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 28.4.1975 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Peti- tion No. 1819175) M. K. Ramamurlhi and J. Ramamurthi, for the appellants. Madan Mohan, for the respondents 4-8, 10-25, 27-30 & 32-36. lJ. D. Sharma & R. N. Sachthey, for respondents 1-2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JASWANT SINGH, J.-This appeal by special leave which is directed against the judgment and order dated April 28, 1975, of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, dismissing Civil Writ Petition No. 1819 of 1975 filed by the appellants and respondents 3 to 3 7 herein, who are industrial workers employed in Factori
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.