( 51 ) UNFORTUNATELY this advice does not come handy to us in this difference of opinion with which we are faced. The Management of Advance Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) is a decision of five judges. It was decided on March 4, 1970. Hidayatullah CJ spoke for the Court. One view was taken in that case. S. K. Sing's case (supra) is again a decision of five judges pronounced on September 14, 1970. In that case Sikri J. , Bhargava J. , and Mitter J. gave their separate opinions. No other judge adverted to this aspect of the matter except Bhargava J. He took a different view.

( 52 ) WE arc certainly bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court as Article 141 of the Constitution of India says:"the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India. "the question is: What is the law declared by the Supreme Court? Is it the opinion of Hidayatullah CJ or is it the opinion of Bhargava J? Both these decisions, it appears to us, take opposing and contradictory views and it is not possible to reconcile the observations in these two decisions. In these circumstances we think we are at liberty to consider which of the two views is supported by the provisions of the Constitution.

( 53 ) WE have already held that the Administrator is a "state Government" within the meaning of Section 2 (a) (ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The counsel say's that this holding is contrary to the view of the Division Bench in Rodhey's case where it has been ruled that Delhi is not a State. The referring Bench has REFERRED TO this question to us.

( 54 ) THE counsel cited before us the relevant decisions of the Supreme Court on this point, viz. , Reference by the President of India under Article 143 (1) of the constitution of India on the implementation of the Indo-Pakistan Agreement relating to Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclave's, AIR 1960 Supreme Court 845 Ram Kishore Sen and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1966 Supreme Court 644 and T. M. Kanniyan and others v. Income-tax Officer, Pondicherry and another, AIR 1968 Supreme Court 637 in addition to the two decisions already noticed.

( 55 ) IN deference to the arguments of the counsel and the referring order of the Division Bench we have thought it fit to notice this conflict of opinion. IT appears to us that the view of Bhargava J. in S. K. Singh (supra) is supported by the plain provisions of Article 367 of the Constitution of India. IN the Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. The State of Bihar and others, (1955) 2 S. C. R. 603, Das CJ cited the following passage from Frankfurter J:". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about if. "[graves v. New York (1938) 306 U. S. 466]. As in the United States so in India the touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution.

( 56 ) THE decision of this Court in Rodhey's case that Delhi is not a "state" appears to be in accordance with the reasoning of Bhargava J. in the case of S. K. Singh (supra ). Since on the view we have taken in this case, namely, that the provisions of the Constitution do not call for our interpretation we think that it is unnecessary to say anything further on this constitutional controversy. C. W. 315 of 1971

( 57 ) IN this civil writ petition the main point was about the competence of the Lt. Governor to make the reference. No other point was urged. Since we have held that Lt. Governor is the "appropriate Government" we dismiss the writ petition but in the circumstances without costs.

( 58 ) C. W. 1495 of 1973, C. W. 1500 of 1973 and L. P. A. 178 of 1970 arc remitted to the Division Bench for decision on the remaining points. In the aforesaid L. P. A. we agree with the decision of Rangarajan J. on point No. 2 where the contention of validity of the reference has been dealt with. Though the counsel before the learned single judge did not pursue the point after his attention was drawn to th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document