SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M Ahmadi, C.J.I., S.P.Bharucha, J.
Air India Limited
Versus
Union Of India
Case No. : .
Date of Decision : 7/18/95
Advocates Appeared: Aggarwala Adish : Ahmed Altaf : Bhasin Lalit : Dara G. : Gaur P. : Gupta Nina : Jaising Indira : Kiran : Kumar Vineet : Nagaraja K.R. : Nariman F.S. : Rao C.V.Subba : Sharma Jitendra : Sharma Niraj : Shroff M.N. : Sinha S. : Srivastava R.P. : Terdal S.N.
Air Corporations Act, 1953 - Section 45 - Cover those employees who joined Air Indies service – Retired from Service - Air Corporations Act, 1994 came into force - By reason of Section II thereof the Air Corporations Act, 1953, stands repealed from that day. Based upon this appearing for Air employees, has raised a contention that goes to the root. Air case had been that its employees terms and conditions of service were governed by the said Regulations framed under Section 45 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953, that Act having now been repealed, the said Regulations no longer survived and the sheet-anchor of Air bid to avert certification of Standing Orders under the Standing Orders Act disappeared – Held, WHEN a statute is repealed any bye-law made ceases to be operative unless there is a saving clause in the new statute preserving the old bye-law. There appear to be two reasons for this: ... Secondly, because the usual practice is to insert in the later statute a section expressly preserving previously made bye-laws if it is intended that they shall remain in force - BENNION on Statutory Interpretation states that a "saving is a provision the intention of which is to narrow the effect of the enactment to which it refers so as to preserve some existing legal rule or right from its operation - It adds Very often a saving is unnecessary, but is put in ex to doubts - Updated text of the Interpretation Act, 1978 set out in book at p. 897 puts into statutory form in Section 15 what is otherwise in law, namely, that the repeal of an enactment does not, unless the contrary intention appears, affect any right or privilege accrued under that enactment - In our view, if subordinate legislation is to survive the repeal of its parent statute, the repealing statute must say so in so many words and by mentioning the title of the subordinate legislation. We do not think that there is room for implying anything in this behalf - Section 8 of the 1994 Act does not in express terms save the said Regulations, nor does it mention them. Section 8 only protects the remuneration, terms and conditions and rights and privileges of those who were in Air Indias employment when the 1994 Act came into force. Such saving is undoubtedly to doubts of those Air India employees who were then in service. What is enacted in Section 8 does not cover those employees who joined Air service after the 1994 Act came into force. The limited saving enacted in Section 8 does not, in our opinion, extend to the said Regulations – Appeal dismissed
Judgment
S.P.BHARUCHA, J.
(1) SPECIAL leave granted.
(2) THE appeal impugns a judgment of the Delhi High court. The appellant is Air India.
(3) AIR India was established under the Air Corporations Act, 1953. Under the provisions of Section 45 thereof, the Air India Employees Service Regulations, 1963, were framed with the consent of the central government. The said Regulations governed the terms and conditions of service of Air Indias employees. In or about the year 1982 the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, Delhi, initiated proceedings against Air India under the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, for certification of Standing Orders. Air India contended that the Standing Orders Act did not apply to it. The contention was rejected and Standing Orders were certified. Air Indias appeal was rejected. Air India then filed the writ petition upon which the order under appeal was passed. The High court held that the Standing Orders Act was a special Act and applied to Air Indias employees.
(4) THE Air Corporations (Transfer of Undertakings and Repeal) Act, 1994 came into force on 29/1/1994. By reason of Section II thereof the Air Corporations Act, 1953, stands repealed from that day. Based upon this, Ms Jaising, appearing for Air Indias employees, has raised a contention that goes to the root. Air Indias, case had been that its employees terms and conditions of service were governed by the said Regulations framed under Section 45 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953, that Act having now been repealed, the said Regulations no longer survived and the sheet-anchor of Air Indias bid to avert certification of Standing Orders under the Standing Orders Act disappeared.
(5) MR F.S. Nariman, learned Senior Counsel for Air India, submitted that the said Regulations were saved by Section 8 of the 1994 Act which reads thus:
"8. Provisions in respect of officers and other employees of corporations.- (1 Every officer or other employee of a corporation (except a Director of the Board, Chairman, Managing Director or any other person entitled to manage the whole or a substantial part of the business and affairs of the corporation) serving in its employment immediately before the appointed day shall, insofar as such officer or other employee is employed in connection with the undertaking which has vested in a company by virtue of this Act, become, as from the appointed day, an officer or other employee, as the case may be, of the company in which the undertaking has vested and shall hold his office or service therein by the same tenure, at the same remuneration, upon the same terms and conditions, with the same obligations and with the same rights and privileges as to leave, passage, insurance, superannuation scheme, provident fund, other funds, retirement, pension, gratuity and other benefits as he would have held under that corporation if its undertaking had not vested in the company and shall continue to do so as an officer or other employee, as the case may be, of the company or until the expiry of a period of six months from the appointed day if such officer or other employee opts not to be the officer or other employee of the company, within such period.
(2 Where an officer or other employee of a corporation opts under Ss. (1 not to be in the employment or service of the company in which the undertaking of that corporation has vested, such officer or other employee shall be deemed to have resigned.
(3 Notwithstanding anything contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 or in any other law for the time being in force, the transfer of the services of any officer or other employee of a corporation to a company shall not entitle such officer or other employee to any compensation under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force and no such claim shall be entertained by any court, tribunal or other authority.
(4 The officer
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.