PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and N.L.Untwalia JJ.
Jagdish Vastralaya
Versus
State Of Bihar
Decided On : AUGUST 07, 1963
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Bihar Shops and Establishments Act (Bihar Act 8 of 1954) - Section 26 - Amendment by Bihar Act 26 of 1959 - Validity - Whether violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution - Whether repugnant to certain provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act (Central Act 14 of 1947), the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act (Central Act 20 of 1946) and the Payment of Wages Act (Central Act 4 of 1936).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 26 of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act (Bihar Act 8 of 1954) as amended by Bihar Act 26 of 1959, arguing that it violated the guarantee under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The petitioner also contended that the amended Section 26 was repugnant to certain provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act (Central Act 14 of 1947), the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act (Central Act 20 of 1946), and the Payment of Wages Act (Central Act 4 of 1936).
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Section 26 of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act (Bihar Act 8 of 1954) as amended by Bihar Act 26 of 1959 was constitutionally valid and did not violate the guarantee under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court further held that there was no repugnancy between the provisions of Section 26 of the Bihar Act and those of the Central Acts, namely, the Industrial Disputes Act, the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, and the Payment of Wages Act.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 26 of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act (Bihar Act 8 of 1954) as amended by Bihar Act 26 of 1959 was constitutionally valid? 2. Whether Section 26 of the Bihar Act was repugnant to certain provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act (Central Act 14 of 1947), the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act (Central Act 20 of 1946), and the Payment of Wages Act (Central Act 4 of 1936)?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that Section 26 of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act (Bihar Act 8 of 1954) as amended by Bihar Act 26 of 1959 was constitutionally valid and did not violate the guarantee under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court reasoned that the restriction imposed by Section 26 was reasonable from the procedural standpoint as the prescribed authority under Section 26(3) of the Act was a Labour Court constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, which ensured that the decision of the authority would be made by an officer who had held judicial office or had judicial experience. 2. The Court held that there was no repugnancy between the provisions of Section 26 of the Bihar Act and those of the Central Acts, namely, the Industrial Disputes Act, the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, and the Payment of Wages Act. The Court reasoned that the subject-matter of the Bihar Act was different from the subject-matter of the Central Acts and the field of operation was distinct and separate.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed all the applications challenging the constitutional validity of Section 26 of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act (Bihar Act 8 of 1954) as amended by Bihar Act 26 of 1959.
V.Ramaswami, J.
1. In all these applications which have been heard together a common question of law arises for de- termination, namely, whether the provisions of Sec.26 of Bihar Act 8 of 1954 as amended by Bihar Act 26 of 1959 are constitutionally valid. Sec.26 of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act (Bihar Act 8 of 1954) as previously enacted read as follows.-
"26. Notice of discharge -- (1) No employer shall discharge from his employment any employee who has been in such employment continuously for a period of not less than six months except for a reasonable cause and without giving such employee at least one months notice or one months wages in lieu of such notice. Provided that such notice shall not be necessary where the services of such employee are dispensed with on a charge of such misconduct as may be prescribed by the State Government supported by satisfactory evidence recorded at an inquiry held for the purpose.
(2) Every such employee shall have a right of appeal to such authority and within such time as may be prescribed either on the ground that -- (i) there was no reasonable cause for dispensing with his services, or
(ii) no notice was served on him as required by Sub-section (i), or
(iii) he had not been guilty of any misconduct as held by the employer.
(3) The decision of the appellate authority shall be final and binding on both the employer and the employee."
The constitutional validity of this section was challenged before the Patna High Court in Jugal Kishore V/s. Labour Commissioner, Bihar, AIR 1958 Pat 442 and it was held in that case that Sec.26 (2) and (3) of the statute was unconstitutional as violating the guarantee under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. It was pointed out in that case that the absence of any right in the statute to go up in appeal against the order of the appellate authority under Sec.26 (2) of the Act was a great lacuna in the Act and the restriction imposed on the guarantee under Article 19 (i) (g) of the Constitution was not reasonable. After the decision of the Patna High Court was given in this case there was an amendment of Sec.26 by the Bihar Legislature by the amending Act, Bihar Act 26 of 1959, which came into force on the 25th November, 1959, and received the assent of the Governor on that date. After the amendment Sec.26 of the Act reads as follows: -
"26. Notice of dismissal or discharge -- (1) No employer shall dismiss or discharge from his employment any employee who has been in such employment continuously for a period of not less than six months except for a reasonable cause and without giving such employee at least one months notice or one months wages in lieu of such notice: Provided that such notice shall not be necessary where the services of such employee are dispensed with on a charge of such misconduct as may be prescribed by the State Government supported by satisfactory evidence recorded at an inquiry held for the purpose.
(2) Every employee, so dismissed or discharged may make a complaint in writing, in the prescribed manner, to a prescribed authority within 30 days of the receipt of the order of dismissal or discharge on one or more of the following grounds, namely: - (i) there was no reasonable cause for dispensing with his services; or
(ii) no notice was served on him as required by Sub-section (i); or
(iii) he had not been guilty of any misconduct as held by the employer.
(3) Nothwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (2), where the order of dismissal or discharge was received by an employee at any time before the commencement of the Bihar Shops and Establishments (Amendment) Act, 1959, he may make a complaint in writing in the prescribed manner before a prescribed authority within sixty days of the commencement of the said Act: Provided that such complaints, if any, pending before an authority prescribed prior to the commencement of the said Act shall be deemed to have been duly filed before the authority prescribed after such
Jugal Kishore V/s. Labour Commissioner, Bihar
Raghavacharya V/s. Saligramacharya
Assam Oil Co. Ltd., New Delhi V/s. Its Workmen
Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi V/s. Employees Of The Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi
Brij Indar Singh V/s. Kanshi Ram
Chartered Bank, Bombay V/s. Chartered Bank Employees Union
Management Of U.B. Dutt And Co. (Private) Ltd. V/s. Workmen Of U. B. Dutt And Co. (Private) Ltd
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.