The court affirmed the validity of both Hindi and English versions of the notification, with the English translation taking authoritative precedence in cases of conflict, establishing the legal framework for official languages in state legislation.

1. The petitioner Messrs. Jaswant Sugar Mills Limited (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) is a limited liability company and carried on business of manufacture and sale of sugar. On 1st October, 1958, the Deputy Labour Commissioner (Industrial Relations), U.P., referred the following matter of dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, U.P., Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) for adjudication:
"Whether the designation and / or wages of the workmen appearing in the annexure need any revision? If so, from what date and with what details?"
The Tribunal made its award on 30th April, 1959, and the same was published in the U.P. Gazette on 3rd June, 1959. By means of this petition the award mentioned above has been challenged by the petitioner.

2. Under the provisions of S.4 - K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the power to make a reference has been given to the State Government. That power can, however, be delegated under S.11 - A of the Act. Notification No.2723 (ST) / XXXVI - A - 150 (ST) - 57 dated 20th May, 1957, was published both in Hindi as also in English in an extraordinary issue of the U.P. Gazette. By means of this Notification the State Government delegated some powers under the Act to the Labour Commissioner and the Deputy Labour Commissioner, U.P. Whereas in the English version of the Notification the sections in respect of which powers had been delegated were 4 - K and 6 - H, the Hindi version mentioned the sections as "Matter in vernacular omitted" and "Matter in vernacular omitted" would correspond to 4 - J in English. After the present petition had been filed in this Court, the State Government issued in an Extraordinary Issue of the U.P. Gazette dated 29th August, 1959, a corrigendum stating that instead of "Matter in vernacular omitted" and "Matter in vernacular omitted" and" Matter in vernacular omitted" be read in the Hindi Notification dated 20th May, 1957.

3. It would contribute to a clear understanding of the case if at this stage a few facts were mentioned. The U.P. Legislature passed two Acts being U.P. Act No.1 of 1950 (U.P. Language Bills Act) and U.P. Act No.26 of 1951 (U.P. Official Language Act). By the former it was provided that the proceedings in the U.P. Legislature shall be in Hindi and the U.P. Acts shall also be in the same language. By the latter it was provided that for all official purposes in U.P. Hindi shall be used.

4. In the English version of the Notification dated 20th May, 1957, the words "By Order, A.D. Pande, Secretary" appear. In the Hindi version the corresponding words used are "Agya Se, Ambadat Pande, Sachiv." This case originally came up before me when two submissions were made on behalf of the petitioner. They were as follows:
(1) The Deputy Labour Commissioner had no jurisdiction to make the reference because the English version of the Notification alone to the exclusion of the Hindi one could be looked into under the law, but inasmuch as the English version had not been properly authenticated and had not been published under the authority of the Governor that too could not be looked into.
(2) That the Hindi Notification cannot support the case for delegation as there is in fact no delegation of power under S.4K of the Act in that Notification.

5. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of E. Hill and Co. (Private) Ltd. v. Mohammad Ali, 1961 All LJ 506, had in effect decided that the Hindi ver