IMPORTANT POINT
There is presumption against a repeal by implication and determination test would be whether enactments were sharply conflicting or were inconsistent and/or repugnant.

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-By the impugned judgment, the Gujarat High Court held that notwithstanding enactment of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) the obligation to comply with the requirement of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 (for short the Establishments Act ) did not get wiped out.

2. Though the fine that was imposed on the appellant is not very much in terms of money, the appellant contended that the problem is of recurring nature and, therefore, the issues should be settled. It was contended that there was divergence in views of several High Courts. The Patna High Court in Bihar State Road Transport Corporation v. Orang Bahadur (AIR 1968 Patna page 200) and Amamathsingh v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Bihar (AIR 1970 Patna page 269 (Full Bench) held that the enactment of Act did away with the requirement to comply with requirements of Establishment Act by applying logic of implied repeal. The Bombay High Court also held likewise in the Corporation of the City of Nagpur through Shop Inspector v. M/s. Inland Carriers, Nagpur and Anr. (1987 LLJ 270). But a different view was adopted by the Gujarat High Court in the impugned judgment which differed from the view of Patna High Court and Bombay High Court.

3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there must be a definite legislative intent that two statute should operate in respect of identical issues. The Establishments Act has been rendered repugnant by enactment of the Act. Reference is made to Section 37 of the Act to submit that by necessary implication there was repeal of the Establishments Act. Both these statutes fall under Entry 24 of List III (the Concurrent List) of VII Schedule to the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution ) and, therefore, it is but natural to presume that there was a repeal by implication.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State, submitted that the two statutes in question operate in different fields and there is no question of any repugnancy as was rightly held by the High Court.

The submissions require careful consideration.

5. There is presumption against a repeal by implication; and the reason of this rule is based on the theory that the Legislature while enacting a law has a complete knowledge of the existing laws on the same subject matter, and therefore, when it does not provide a repealing provision, the intention is clear not to repeal the existing legislation. (See : Municipal Council, Palai through the Commissioner of Municipal Council, Palai v. T.J. Joseph (AIR 1963 SC 1561), Northern India Caterers (Private) Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr. (AIR 1967 SC 1581), Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Shiv Shanker (1971(1) SCC 442) and Ratan Lal Adukia and Anr. v. Union of India (AIR 1990 SC 104). When the new Act contains a repealing section mentioning the Acts which it expressly repeals, the presumption against implied repeal of other laws is further strengthened on the principle expressio unius (persone vel rei) est exclusio alterius. (The express intention of one person or thing is the exclusion of another), as illuminatingly stated in Garnett v. Bradley (1878) 3 AC 944 (HL). The continuance of existing legislation, in the absence of an express provision of repeal by implication lies on the party asserting the same. The presumption is, however, rebutted and a repeal is inferred by necessary implication when the provisions of the later Act are so inconsistent with or repugnant to the provisions of the earlier Act and that the two cannot stand together. But, if the two can be read together and some application can be made of the words in the earlier Act, a repeal will not be inferred. (See : A.G. v. Moore (1878) 3 Ex. D 276, Ratanlal s case (supra) and R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (AIR 1992 SC 81).

6. The necessary questions to be asked are :

(1) Whether there is direct conflict between the two prov