Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1963 (11) TMI 93

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... yal, who was the Certifying Officer, under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, hereinafter referred to as the Central Standing Orders Act. By this order made on August 6, 1962, Mr. Sanyal had certified the draft standing orders submitted by the General Manager, Bhilai Steel Project, Madhya Pradesh. On behalf of the several Unions, including the three Unions, who are the respondents before us, an objection was raised that Mr. Sanyal had no jurisdiction to certify the Standing Orders inasmuch as the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Workmen (Standing Orders) Act, 1959 applied to this industry and not the Central Standing Orders Act. Mr. Sanyal overruled this objection and passed his order, as already stated, on August 6, 1962 c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ipal Board, Pushkar v. State Transport Authority, Rajasthan Others([1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 373.). The position in law is that the application for certification of the standing orders, though invalid at the time it was made because the officer had no jurisdiction to deal with them, became a valid application when he did acquire jurisdiction. To put the matter in another way, the application should be deemed to have been renewed immediately after the officer acquired jurisdiction in the matter and so, that jurisdiction having continued up to the date of the certification, the certification also would be with jurisdiction and binding. The question that requires examination therefore is: whether before the date of certification i.e., Augus .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in force in Madhya Pradesh. The provisions of Act XIX of 1959 as regards the certification of standing orders were also not applicable to Bhilai because s. 1, sub-s. 3 of this Act while laying down that the Act applied to every industrial establishment wherein 20 or more workmen were employed and to such class or classes of other industrial establishments as the State Government might by notification specify was made subject to a proviso in these words:- Provided that it shall not apply except with the consent of the Central Government to an industrial establishment under the control of the Central Government or a Railway Administration or mines or oil-fields. Admittedly, this consent of the Central Government was not given to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o escape therefore from the conclusion that on and after December 31, 1960, the Bhilai Steel Industry was governed as regards the matter of standing orders by the Central Standing Orders Act of 1946. This continued to be the position till November 25, 1961 when Act XIX of 1959 was repealed and was replaced by the Madhya Pradesh Act XXVI of 1961, Madhya Pradesh Industrial Establishment Standing Orders Act, 1961. It would seem that this Act was applicable to the Bhilai Steel Industry as it did not contain any provision similar to the one in section 1, sub-s. 3 of the 1959 Act. The Madhya Pradesh Act No. XXVI of 1961 was however amended in 1962 by the Madhya Pradesh Act 5 of 1962. This Amending Act added to sub-s. 1 of s. 2 of the 1961 Act .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Bhilai Steel Industry and that notification not having been superseded by any subsequent notification it continued to be effective in respect of the Bhilai Steel Industry under s. 25 of the Madhya Pradesh General Clauses Act. On this view of the effect of s. 25 of the Madhya Pradesh General Clauses Act it based its conclusion that the State Act continued to be applicable to the Bhilai Steel Industry. We are of opinion that s. 25 of the Madhya Pradesh General Clauses Act could not save the notification in question after the 1947 Act was repealed. That section provides:- Where any enactment is repealed and reenacted by a Madhya Pradesh Act with or without modification, then, unless it is otherwise expressly provided, any appointment, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates