SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(MP) 285

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
A. K. PATNAIK, DIPAK MISRA, SHANTANU KEMKAR
HEAVY ELECTRICALS MAZDOOR TRADE UNION - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M.P. - Respondents
W. P. 14069 Of 2005
Decided On : 02/24/2006

Advocates Appeared:
AKSHAT SHRIVASTAVA, Kishore Shrivastava, PREM FRANCIS, RAVINDRA SHRIVASTAVA, SANJAY YADAV

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State government cannot issue a notification amending or rescinding a previous notification issued under sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 bringing the provisions of the Act into force in respect of an industry or undertaking.

Headnote:

Notification - Validity of Notification under M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 - Section 1 - [Section 1 of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960] - The court discussed the validity of a notification issued by the State government under sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 and the vires of sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the said Act. The court analyzed the power of the State government to bring the provisions of the Act into force in respect of industries or undertakings and the implications of amending or rescinding such notifications. The court overruled a previous judgment and quashed the impugned notification dated October 10, 2005.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the validity of a notification issued by the State government under sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 and the vires of sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the said Act. The petitioner, a trade union of employees working in an industry, was recognized by the registrar under Chapter III of the Act. The Act regulated the relations between the employees and the industry, and all industrial disputes between the employer and the employees were settled in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the State government cannot issue a notification amending or rescinding a previous notification issued under sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act bringing the provisions of the Act into force in respect of an industry or undertaking. The court overruled a previous judgment and quashed the impugned notification dated October 10, 2005.

Issues: The issues involved the validity of the notification issued by the State government under sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 and the vires of sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the said Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the nature, limits, and dimensions of the power of the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act and concluded that it cannot include the power to amend or rescind the notification bringing the provisions of the Act into force. The court also discussed the implications of Section 21 of the M. P. General Clauses Act, 1957 in relation to the power of the State government to issue notifications.

Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned notification dated October 10, 2005 and allowed the writ petition to the extent indicated. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

A. K. PATNAIK, CJ.

( 1 ) IN this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of Notification dated october 10, 2005 issued by the State government under sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 as well as the vires of sub- section (4) of Section 1 of the said Act.

( 2 ) THE facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the petition are that under Entry 22 of List III to the Second Schedule to the constitution read with Article 246 of the constitution, both Parliament and State legislature have concurrent power to make law relating to trade union and industrial and labour disputes. In exercise of such powers, the State Legislature has enacted the M. P. Industrial Relations Act, I960 (for short the act) with the assent of the President of India. Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act provides that Section 1 and Section 112 of the act shall come into force at once and the State government may, by notification, bring any or all of the remaining provisions of the Act into force in respect of (a) any or all industries, or (b) undertakings in industries where the number of employees on any day during 12 months preceding the date of notification or any day thereafter was or is more than such number as may be specified in such notification, on such date as may be specified therein. In exercise of such powers under sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act, by Notification dated December 31,1960, the state Government directed that all the provisions of the Act other than Sections 1 and 112 thereof shall come into force, on december 31, 1960 in respect of undertakings or the industries specified in the schedule to the notification wherein the number of employees on any date during 12 months preceding or on the date of the notification or any day thereafter was more than 100. In the schedule to the said notification, 32 industries were specified. 'electrical goods industry' is one of the 32 industries specified and hence industry of the respondent No. 3 in Madhya Pradesh came within the purview of the Act.

( 3 ) THE petitioner which is trade union of employees working in the industry of the respondent No. 3 was recognised by the registrar under Chapter III of the Act. The Act regulated the relations between the employees and the industry of the respondent No. 3 and all industrial disputes between the employer and the employees in the industry of the respondent No. 3 were settled in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

( 4 ) IN May, 2000, M. P. Industrial relations (Amendment) Act, 2000 (for short the Amendment Act 2000) was enacted and in section 1, sub-section (4) was introduced providing that the State Government may, by a notification, direct that the provisions of the act shall cease to apply to such industry in such area and from such date as may be specified in the notification. The Statement of Objects and reasons of the Amendment Act, 2000 stated that at present the State Government had no power to displace the application of the provisions to the industry to which the Act has already been applied and the need of this power has been felt at different times, hence the proposed amendment. Sub-section (2) of section 1 of the Amendment Act, 2000 provided that the Amendment Act shall come into force on such date as the State Government may, by notification, specify. As yet, the State government has not issued a notification appointing the date from which the Amendment act, 2000 shall come into force. The result is, sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the Act introduced by the Amendment Act, 2000 has not been brought into force. Yet by the impugned notification dated October 10, 2005, made in purported exercise of powers under sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act, the State government has amended the Notification dated December 31, 1960 so as to delete from the said notification dated December 31, 1960 the industries specified against Serial












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top