IMPORTANT POINT
Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act does not have an overriding effect over the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.

Headnote:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 25-U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 6W rw/s 6-V-Constitution of India-Article 254-Closure of establishment-Requirements of law-Conflict between Central Act and the State Act-First respondent, an industrial establishment carrying on business in Engineering Industry-It employed more than 100 persons in its factory at Ghaziabad-Notice issued by it declaring its intention to close down the said factory at Ghaziabad w.e.f. 23-9-1998-It was notified that services of 99 workmen would be terminated-Industrial dispute raised pleading contravention of Section 25 of the Central Act-First respondent raised a plea to the effect that as number of employees in the said industrial undertaking was less than 300, no permission for closure of industrial undertaking was required in view of Section 6W rw/s 6V of the State Act-Whether there is any conflict between the Central Act and the State Act-(Yes)-State Act, keeping in view the Presidential Assent given thereto shall prevail over the Central Act.
       Held : The Central Act as also the State Act have been enacted in terms of Entry 22 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of Constitution of India. Both Acts were enacted in the year 1947. Chapter V-A of the Central Act relates to layoff and retrenchment which was inserted by Act No. 43 of 1953. Section 25J provides for effect of laws inconsistent with Chapter V-A of the Central Act. It had an overriding effect. The State Act was amended in the year 1957 providing for layoff and retrenchment. It is not in dispute that Section 6R of the State Act provides for effect of laws inconsistent with Sections 6J to 6Q and in terms of sub-Section (2) thereof, the provision of Section 6R shall be deemed not to affect the provision of any other law for the time being in force. The Parliament introduced special provisions relating to layoff, retrenchment and closure by inserting Chapter V-B in the Central Act in certain establishments containing Section 25K to 258 in the year 1976. In terms of Section 25K, Chapter V-B was to apply in an establishment in which not less than 300 workmen are employed. Section 258 provides that certain provisions of Chapter V-A including Section 25J shall apply to an industrial establishment to which the provisions of Chapter V-B apply. It may be true that the reason for amending Chapter V-B of the Central Act by reason of Act No. 46 of 1982 inter alia was to extend the beneficient provisions to workmen of small establishments by reducing the existing employment limit thence from 300 to 100. But it is equally true that the State Act was amended by Act No. 26 of 1983 after the amendment of the Central Act. It is not in dispute that Section 25K and Section 250 of the Central Act are in pari materia with Sections 6V and 6W of the State Act. We must also notice that whereas the Central Act received the President s Assent on 31.8.1982, the State Act received the President s Assent on 10.10.1983. It is also not in dispute that by reason of the State Act the Chapter relating to layoff retrenchment and closure was made applicable in relation to an industrial establishment wherein not less than 300 workmen are employed. The amending Act of 1982 was published in Gazette of India on 1.9.1982 and was given effect to from 21.8.1984 whereas the State Act was published in the U.P. Gazette on 12.10.1983 and was given effect to from 3.8.1983. (Paras 12 to 14)
       In terms of clause 2 of Article 254 of the Constitution of India where a law made by the legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List contains any provisions repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by the Parliament or an existing law with respect to the matters, then the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for consideration of the President and has received its assent, prevail in that State. It is not in dispute that the 1961 Act has received the assent of the President of India and, thus, would prevail over any parliamentary law governing the same field. (Para 18)
       The Central Act and the State Act indisputably cover the same field. The jurisdiction of the State Legislature to enact a law by a Parliamentary legislation is not impermissible. Subject to the provisions contained in Article 254 of the Constitution of India, both will operate in their respective fields. The Constitutional Scheme in this behalf is absolutely clear and unambiguous. In this case, this Court is not concerned with the conflicting legislations operating in the same field by reason of enactments made by the Parliament and the State in exercise of their respective legislative powers contained in List I and List II of the Seventh Schedule of Constitution of India but admittedly the field being the same, a question would arise as regard the effect of one Act over the other in the event it is found that there exists a conflict. For the said purpose, it is not necessary that the conflict would be direct only in a case wherein the provisions of one Act would have to be disobeyed if the provisions of the other is followed. The conflict may exist even where both the laws lead to different legal results. (Para 21)
       The State Act lays down a complete exhaustive code. It covers the same subject-matter as contained in Sections 25K and 250 of the Central Act. Both the State Act and the Central Act contain penal provisions. If the procedures laid down in the Central Act are not applicable, a person need not comply the provisions therein keeping in view the fact that its industrial establishment is covered by the State Act in terms whereof the applicability of the relevant provisions would be attracted only when the establishment employees more than 300 persons. (Para 24)
       Keeping in view the constitutional scheme vis-a-vis the Central Act and the State Act, we are of the opinion that there exists a conflict and, thus, Article 254 of the Constitution would be attracted. (Para 30)
       Keeping in view the plain language used in Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India we are of the opinion that the State Act in the fact and circumstance of this case, keeping in view the Presidential Assent given thereto shall prevail over the Central Act. (Para 35)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.-The question of application of Clause (2) of Article 254 of the Constitution of India is involved in this appeal which arises out of the judgment and order dated 14.10.1999 passed by the High Court of Allahabad dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants herein and allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondent-company herein.

BACKGROUND FACTS :

2. The appellant herein is a Trade Union registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926. The first respondent herein is an industrial establishment carrying on business in Engineering Industry. It admittedly employed more than 100 persons in its factory at Ghaziabad. A notice was issued by it on or about 21.9.1998 declaring its intention to close down the said factory at Ghaziabad with effect from 23.9.1998 as a result whereof it was notified that services of 99 workmen would be terminated.

3. An industrial dispute was raised by the appellant herein on or about 23.9.1998 questioning the validity of the said notice raising a factual plea that more than 300 workmen are employed by the first respondent in its Ghaziabad establishment and, thus, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Central Act") would be applicable. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the purported complaint made by the appellant herein, a notice was served by the Assistant Labour Commissioner upon the first respondent herein directing it to show cause as to why it should not be prosecuted for contravention of the provisions contained in Section 25 of the Central Act. In its reply dated 3.10.1998, the first respondent raised a plea to the effect that as the number of employees in the said industrial undertaking was less than 300, no permission for closure of the industrial undertaking was required in view of Section 6-W read with Section 6-V of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as `the State Act ).

4. Two recovery certificates were issued against the first respondent towards the salary of the workmen under the State Act. Three writ petitions came to be filed by the first respondent questioning the show-cause notice as also the recovery certificates aforementioned. The appellant herein also filed a writ petition questioning the closure notice issued by the appellant. By reason of the impugned judgment, the writ petitions filed by the first respondent were allowed, whereas the writ petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed.

HIGH COURT JUDGMENT :

5. The High Court in its impugned judgment held that having regard to the fact that Chapter V-B of the Central Act was inserted on or about 21.8.1984, the State Act having been enacted in the year 1983 whereby and whereunder Section 6-V to 6-X were inserted, the latter shall, having regard to Article 254 (2) of the Constitution of India, prevail over the former. The High Court although took notice of the fact that the Chapter V-B of the Central Act came into force in the year 1984, it was held that in view of the phraseology used in Article 254 the repugnancy has to be tested in terms of the date of enactment of the legislation in preference to the date of its coming into force. In support of its aforementioned conclusion, strong reliance was placed by the High Court on the decision of this Court in Pt. Rishikesh and Another Vs. Salma Begum [(1995) 4 SCC 718].

SUBMISSIONS :

6. Mr. Gaurab Banerjee, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has raised a number of contentions in support of these appeals. At the outset the learned Counsel had taken us through the relevant provisions of the Central Act, State Act and submitted as under:

(i) A perusal of the Central Act would show that the relevant provisions relating to closure are found in Chapter V-B of the Act covering Sections 25K to 258. Section 25K, as it stands, provides that Chapter VB applies to industrial establishments employing not less than 100 workmen. Section 250 provides for the proce

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 495

IMPORTANT POINTChapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act does not have an overriding effect over the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.

Cases Referred (16)

IMPORTANT POINT
Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act does not have an overriding effect over the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.