I.D. DUA, J.

(1) IN these two appeals on certificate of fitness, challenge is directed against the view taken by a division bench or the Allahabad High court on appeal in central Distillery andChemical Works Ltd., Meerut v. State of U. P., in disagreement with that of a learned Single Judge of that court on the interpretation of Section 16 of the V. P. Industrial Disputes Act of 1957 and Section 6-A of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act of 1947.

(2) THE relevant facts may first be briefly stated. In June 1956 there was a strike in the glass factory of the appellant, M/s. Munshi Lal Beni Ram Glass Works at Ferozabad. As a result the factory was closed down for some time. In August 1956 a settlement was reached with the workers and it became possible to reassume operations from 31/08/1956. The workers were asked to report personally, latest by 26/08/1956, to show their willingness to work. According to the appellant, Lal Khan, one of the workers, failed to register his willingness to work before, the appointed day, and indeed he did not care to report inspite of a messenger having been sent to him requiring his attendance. In his place one Jang Jit was thereupon employed and intimation of this fact duly sent to Lal Khan This gave rise to a controversy between Lal Khan and the employers with the result that the State government purporting to act under S. 3, 4 and 8 of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act referred the following dispute to the Adjudicator :

"WHETHER the employers have wrongly and/or unjustifiably refused employ to Shri Lal Khan with effect from 28/ 29/08/1967 ? If so. to what relief is he entitled ?"

Soon after the reference the appellant presented a writ petition in the Allahabad High court (C. W. No. 899 of 1957) challenging its validity principally on the ground that there was no industrial dispute within the contemplation of the Industrial Disputes Act. As interim stay of the proceedings was declined, the proceedings before the adjudicator -continued and on De cember31, 1957 the adjudicator gave his award. This was followed by an order of the State government, dated 28/01/1958, enforcing the award under S. 3 and 6 (2) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The award and the order of the State government were also challenged by the appellant by means of a writ petition in the High court (C. W. No. 1025 of 1958). Though principally in this writ petition the power of the State government to enforce the award was questioned, challenge to the order of reference was also reiterated. A learned Single Judge allowed this later writ petition on 28/01/1958, holding that the State government had no power to enforce the award in question. According to the learned Single Judge the old Section 6 having been replaced by a new Section 6 by the .U. P. Act 1 of 1957, it was not a case of repeal simpliciter and therefore old Section 6 could not be resorted to by relying on Section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act.

(3) ON the matter having been taken on special appeal a division bench of the High court following its earlier decision reported as central Distillery and Chemical Works Ltd., Meerut v. State of U. P. (supra) reversed the order of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition.

(4) THE short question, the determination of which is decisiveof these appeals, is whether Section 6-A as mentioned in Section 16 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1956 (U. P. Act 1 of 1957) as amended by U. P. Industrial Disputes (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act XXIII of 1957, refers to Section 6-A as it stood in U. P. Act XXVIII of 1947, prior to its amendment by U. P. Act 1 of 1957 or as it emerged after the said amendment. The learned Single Judge construed it to mean as it stood before the amendment of U. P. Act 1 of 1957 whereas according to the two bench decisions Section 16 refers to Section 6-A as amended by U. P. Act 1 of 1957. We are required to de