LexMUNSHI LAL BENI RAM GLASS WORKS versus S. R. SINGH, ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E f G H MUNSHI LAL BENI RAM GLASS WORKS v. S. R. SINGH, ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS October 27, 1969 (V. R.AMASWAMI AND I. D. DUA, JJ.] Utiar Pradesh Industrial Disputes (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act XXIII of 1957, s. 16-If s. 16 refers to s. 6A as it stood prior to amendment of s. 6A by U.P. Industrial Disputes (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1956 (1 of 1957)-Generc'l Clauses Act, 1860 s. 6---Award--State Government's power to enforce. The State Government, purporting to act under ss. 3, 4 and 8 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1944 referred a dispute in the appellant's factory to an adjudicator who gave his award on December 31, 1957. On January 28, 1958, the Government passed an order enforcing the Award, under ss. 3 and 6(12) of the Act. The Award was challenged by means of a writ petition in the High Court. A single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition holding that the State Government bad no power to enforce the Award in question. According to the single Judge the old s. 6 having been replaced by a new s. 6 by U.P. Act 1 of 1957 it was not a case of repeal simpliciter and therefore old s. 6 could not be resorted to by relying on s. 6( e) of the General Clauses Act. A Divis~on Bench, in appeal, reversed the order of the single Judge and djsmig.sed the writ petition. On the question whether s. 6A as mentioned in s. 16 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1956 (U.P. 1 of 19571 as amended by U.P. Industrial Disputes (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act XXIII of 1957 refers to s. 6A as it stood in U.P. Act XXVIII of 1947 prior to its amend- ment by U.P. Act 1 of 1957 or as it emerged after the said amendment, HELD : (i) By U.P. Act 1 of 1957 s. 6A was replaced by new s. 6A which came into force from April 16, 1957. Prima facie the amendment in s. 16 made in November 1957 by U.P. Act XXIII of 1957 should be referable to s. 6A in the form in which it existed on the date of the en- forcement of Act XXIII of 1957. But looking at the position as it stood on April 16, 1957 it would be seen that s. 16 was designed to save the pending proceedings from the operation of U.P. Act 1 of 1957 itself. If this Act was held to be inapplicable then s. 6A as amended thereby would be excluded and that section as it stood prior to the amendment by U.P. Act 1 of 1957 would automatically be attracted. To uphold the view of the learned single Judge would render awards like the one in the present case unenforceable which intention is difficult to attribute to the legisla- ture. On the adjudication of the dispute the provision of s." 6A would be attracted and thereunder the State Government could enforce the Award. [32 C-FJ (ii) Tho broad proposition that section 6 of the General Clauses Act is ruled out whenever there is a repeal of any enactment followed by a fresh legislation, cannot be accepted. Section 6 would be applicable in such cases also unless the new legislation manifests an intention incompa· tible with or contrary to the proposition of the section. Such incompati- bility would have to be ascertained from a consideration of ~ the rele- vant provisions of ,the new law and the. mere .absence of a saVIng dause is by itself not material. [33 G-34 BJ 28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1970] 3 S.C.R. St<lte of Punjab v. Mohar Singh, [1955] 1 S.C.R. 893 referred to. A (iii) The contention that the decision of the adjudicator is not an "award" as defined in s. 2(c) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, as amended by Act 1 of 1957 has no force. If U.P. Act 1 of 1957 is ex· eluded from its application to pending proceeding unde'r s. 16, then the word "award" has to be libe'rally construed and so construed it would be covered by s. 6A. The power conferred by s. 16 and 6A has to be ~n&- tn1ed as real_ and not illusory and it has to be interpreted so as to achieve B the purpose for which it was conferred. [33 D-E] CIVIL- APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1706 and 1707 of 1968. Appeals from the judgment and decree dated May 7, 1964 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeals Nos. 77 and , 118 C of 1960. G. N. Dikshit, for the appellant (in both the appeals). J. P. Goyal and S. N. Singh, for respondent No. 3 (in C.A. No. 1706 of 1968) and respondent No. 1 (£n C.A. No. 1707 of 1968). 0 41 C. B. Agarwala and O. P. Rana, for respondent No. 1 (in C.A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.