TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery much in terms of money, the appellant contended that the problem is of recurring nature and, therefore, the issues should be settled. It was contended that there was divergence in views of several High Courts. The Patna High Court in Bihar State Road Transport Corporation vs. Orang Bahadur 1968 AIR(PAT) 200) and Amamathsingh vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial tribunal Bihar 1970 AIR(PAT) 269 (Full Bench) held that the enactment of Act did away with the requirement to comply with requirements of Establishment Act by applying logic of implied repeal. The Bombay High Court also held likewise in the Corporation of the City of Nagpur through Shop Inspector vs. M/s. Inland Carriers, Nagpur and Another 1987 LLJ 270). But a different view was ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hern India Caterers (Private) Ltd. and Anr. vs. State of Punjab and Anr. 1967 AIR(SC) 1581), Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Shiv Shanker 1971 (1) SCC 442) and Ratan Lal Adukia and Anr. vs. Union of India 1990 AIR(SC) 104). When the new Act contains a repealing section mentioning the Acts which it expressly repeals, the presumption against implied repeal of other laws is further strengthened on the princile expressio unius (persone vel rei) est exclusio alterius. (The express intention of one person or thing is the exclusion of another) as illuminatingly stated in Garnett vs. Bradley [1878] 3 A.C. 944 (HL). The continuance of existing legislation, in the absence of an express provision of repeal by implication lies on the party asserting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against implying a repeal, unless two Acts are so plainly repugnant to each other that effect cannot be given to both at the same time, a repeal will not be implied, or that there is a necessary inconsistency in the two Acts standing together. (See Craies on Statute Law, Seventh Edition, page 366, with reference to Re: Berrey [1936] Ch. 274). To determine whether a later statute repeals by implication an earlier, it is necessary to scrutinize the terms and consider the true meaning and effect of the earlier Act. Until this is done, it is impossible to ascertain whether any inconsistency exists between the two enactments. The areas of operation of the Act and the Establishments Act in question are different with wholly different aims a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ful scrutiny of the provisions contained in both the above Acts, we find that the Act makes some specific provisions on certain aspects and areas of relationship between worker and management. It is not only silent but also does not advert to or deal with several other vital and crucial aspects of such relationship as are dealt with by the Establishments Act. The responsibilities and obligations of the management under both Acts cannot be avoided altogether and it is only whether on any particular aspect or stipulation, the prescription is found to overlap - to that extent and in respect of any such matter alone the Act, pertaining to motor transport workers will apply to the exclusion of a contra stipulation in the Establishments Act and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
