LexTHE SWADESHI COTTON MILLS CO. LIMITED versus THE STATE OF U. P. AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
Af arch TJ. 422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] THE S\V ADESHI COTTON MILLS CO. LIMITED v. THE STATE OF U. P. AND OTHERS (And Connected Appeals) (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, K. N. W ANCHoo, K. C. DAs GUPTA and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.) Industrial Dispute-Delegated Legislation-Statute authoris- ing Government to appoint industrial co11rts and lay down procedure -Validity of-Condition precedent to making of order--Recital Order, if necessary-Failure to sd out condition in order-1"1fect of -Affidavit showing fulfilment of condition, if admissible -U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, I947 (28 of J94J), s. 3(c), (d) and (g)- G. 0. No. 6r5 dated March I5, r95r. Clauses (c), (d) and (g) of s. 3 of the U. P. Industrial Dis- putes Act, i947, empower the State Government to make provi- sion, by general or special order, for appointing industrial courts, for referring any industrial dispute for conciliation or adjudication in the manner provided in the order and for any incidental or supplementary matters which appear to the State Government necessary or expedient for the purposes of the order. Section 3 provides that such a general or special order is to be made if, in the opinion of the State Government it is necessary or expedient to do so for securing the public safety or convenience, or the maintenance of public order or supplies and services essential to the life of the community, or for maintain- ing employment. On March Is. I951, the State Government made a general order No. 615 under these provisions but did not recite in the order its opinion as to the existence of the condi- tions prescribed in s. 3. A reference of an;industrial dispute was made under the G. 0. and an award was given against the appellant. The appellant contended that the G. 0. setting up the industrial tribunals was invalid as s. 3 of the Act was uncon- stitutional as it delegated essential legislative functions to the Government so far as els. (c), (d) and (g) were concerned and that the G. 0. was bad as the condition precedent for its formu- lation was not recited in the order itself. The respondent filed an affidavit that Government had formed the requisite opinion before making the G. 0. Held, that s. 3 was not unconstitutional as there was no delegation of essential legislative functions to the Government. The legislature bas indicated its policy and has made it a bind- ing rule of conduct. Section 3 Jays down the conditions in which the Government is to act; it lays down that Government may make general or special order if the conditions are satisfied; it • \ 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 423 also provides what those ordrrs are to contain. All. that is left r96r to the Government is to provide by subordinate rules for carry- ing out the purpose of the legislation. The Swadeshi Cotton 2lfills In re The Delhi Laws Act, r9r2, (1951] S.C.R. 747 and Queen co. Limited v. Burak, (1878) L.R. 5 I.A. 178, applied. v. Held, further, that the G. 0. was valid and the failure to The State of u. P. mention the condition precedent in the order itself was remedied &. Others by the filing of the affidavit. Where a condition precedent has to be satisfied before a subordinate authority can pass an order, (executive or in the nature of subordinate legislation), it is not necessary that the satisfaction of the condition should be recited in the order itself, unless the statute requires it. But it is desirable that it should be so mentioned for then the pre- sumption that the condition was satisfied would immediately arise and the bnrden would be on the persons challenging the order to show that the recital is not correct. Even when the recital is not made in the order, it will not become void ab initio and only a further burden is cast on the authority pass- ing the order to satisfy the court by other means, e.g., by filing an affidavit, that the condition precedent was satisfied. The State of Bombay v. Purushottam ] og Naik, [1952] S.C.R. 674, Biswabhusan Naik v. The State of Orissa, [1955] l S.C.R. 92 and The State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji, [1955] l S.C.R. 777, applied. King Emperor v. Sibnath Banerjee, [1944] F.C.R. 42 and King Emperor v. Sibnath Banerjee, [1945] F.C.R. 216, referred to. Wichita Railroad & Light Company v. Public Utilities Com- mission of the State of Kansas, (1922) 67 L. Ed. 124, Herbert Mahler v. Howard Eby, (1924) 68 L. Ed. 549 and Panama Refining Com- pany v. A.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.