The amendment of s. 15 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 by the Central Legislature did not impliedly repeal the West Bengal Amendment Act which provided for interim relief.

1. The petitioner Brooke Bond India Limited Impugns in the present writ application orders dated 13.3.87 and 18.8.87 as passed by the learned Judge, 5th Industrial Tribunal. By order dared 13.3.87 the Tribunal, on an application for interim relief filed by the workman on 23.12.86 directed the Management of the Company to make payment of fifty percent or the salary of rupees two thousand per month in accordance with the provisions of the West Bengal Subsistence Allowance Act 1969 with effect from the date of filling of the application for interim relief till the disposal of the proceedings before the Tribunal. The workman concerned was directed to give a written undertaking supported by an affidavit stating therein that the amount to be received by him on account of Interim relief would be repaid to the company if the case is ultimately decided against him, within seven days from the date of the judgment and award. The company filed an application to review the said order and by an order dated 18.8.87 the Tribunal held that the petition for review filed by the company was not maintainable in law and accordingly it stood rejected If is the contention of the petitioner company that several creditors of the workman respondent no. 2 obtained decrees from the Court of Small Causes at Sealdah and other places and obtained orders of attachment in respect of the salary payable to the said workman respondent no 2 and in view of the said order of attachment passed against the workman concerned, there is no likelihood of the workman re-imbursing money despite the undertaking given by him. The hearing of the proceeding before the Tribunal was not taken up on some pretext or other and the matter was indefinitely delayed so that the company had to incur a recurring liability to go on paying fifty percent of the salary last drawn by the workman as interim relief.

2. Mr. Das, the Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner company drew my attention to the Industrial Disputes (West Bengal Second Amendment) Act 1980 whereby s. 15 of the industrial Disputes Act did undergo an amendment. He drew my attention to s.15(2)(b) of the said amended Act which stipulates that where an industrial dispute has been referred either to a Labour Court or to a Tribunal it shall upon hearing the parties to the dispute, determine, within a period of sixty days from the date of reference under sub s.(1) of s.10 or within such shorter period as may be specified. In the order of reference, the quantum of interim relief admissible, If any, provided that the quantum of interim relief relating to discharge, dismissal, retrenchment of termination of service of the workman shall be equivalent to subsistence allowance as may be admissible under the West Bengal Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act 1969. Mr. Das also drew my attention to the subsequent amendment to the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 as a whole brought in by the Central Legislature where s.15 of the Principal Act for the words "as soon as it is practicable on the conclusion thereof" the words, "within the period specified In the order referring such industrial dispute or the further period extended under the second proviso to sub-s.(2A) of s.10", shall be substituted Mr. Das contended that in view of the amendment incorporated In the Central Act by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act 1982 there was an implied repeal to the West Bengal Amendment Act which incorporated the provisions as to interim relief inasmuch as the main object for which the Central Legislature brought in the amendment postulated the expeditious hearing of a pending proceeding before the Labour Court or the Tribunal as the case may be and if the entire proceeding is over within a stipulated time, there would be no necessity whatsoever of the legislature still making a provision for relief to the indigent workman by way of an interim relief being admissible to him I do not think that there is any substance in the contention rai