Appeal No 65 of 1952
Appeal from an award dated 17th November 1951 made by the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India Calcutta in Appeal No
280 of 1951
K P Khaitan Harnam Das with him for the appellant
H B Asthana for the respondents
Gopalji Mehrotra for the Intervener
December 2
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI J
This is an appeal by special leave against the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal Calcutta upholding the award made by the State Industrial Tribunal Uttar Pradesh with certain modifications
An industrial dispute arose between the appellant the Vishwamitra Press Karyalaya Kanpur and the respondents the workers of the Vishwamitra Press as represented by the Kanpur Samachar Patra Karamchari Union Kanpur in regard to the alleged victimisation of certain workmen under the guise of retrenchment
That industrial dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal by a notification dated the 24th April 1951
The time for making the award expired on the 9th June 1951 and on the 9th June
1951 a further notification was issued extending the time for making the award up to the 30th June 1951
The 30th June 1951 was a public holiday and the 1st July was a Sunday
The Industrial Tribunal made its award on the 2nd July 1951 and pronounced it in open court on that day
It was however thought by the Uttar Pradesh Government that the award was beyond time and invalid and on the 18th July 1951 a notification was issued extending the period up to the 3rd July 1951
This award was challenged by the appellant before the Labour Appellate Tribunal
The Labour Appellate
Tribunal negatived the Contentions of the appellant
The appellat applied 274 for special leave which was granted by this Court on the 21st December 1951 limited to the following grounds  1 The Government had no power to extend the time of the making of award after the expiry of the time originally fixed and the award made by the Adjudicator after such time is illegal ultra vires inoperative and void
2In any case the State Government I had extended the time for making the award till 30th June 1951 and the Adjudicator s award made after that date is void
3That the extension of time by the Government on
21st July 1951 after even the time extended previously had expired was ultra vires and it could not make a void award a valid award
 The industrial dispute which arose between the appellant and the respondents was referred by the Uttar Pradesh Government to the Industrial Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 3 and 4 of the Uttar Pradesh 
The Uttar Pradesh Government had in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 d of the Act promulgated an order inter alia providing for the adjudication of the industrial disputes referred by it to the Industrial Tribunals
Paragraph 16 of that order ran as under   The Tribunal or the Adjudicator shall hear the dispute and pronounce its decision within 40 days excluding holidays observed by courts subordinate to the High Court from the date of reference made to it by the State Government and shall thereafter as soon as possible supply a copy of the same to the parties to the dispute and to such other persons or bodies as the State Government may in writing direct
Provided that the State Government may extend the said period from time to time Paragraph 9 which prescribed the powers and functions of Tribunals inter alia provided 275 9
The decision shall be in writing and shall be pronounced in open court and dated and signed by the member or members of the Tribunal as the case may be at the time of pronouncing it
 It was not disputed before us that the original period calculated in accordance with paragraph 16 above expired on the 9th June 1951 and the Uttar Pradesh Government validly extended the period up to the 30th June 1951
It was however contended that the Industrial Tribunal should have made its award on the 30th June 1951 and not on the 2nd July 1951 as it purported to do
It was urged that the provision as to excluding holidays observed by courts subordinate to the High Court which obtained in paragraph 16 above did not apply when the period was extended up to a particular date
It would apply only if the period was extended by a particular number of days when for the purpose of the computation of those days the holidays would have to be excluded in the manner therein mentioned
The Uttar Pradesh Government having extended the period up to the 30th June 1951 it was submitted that the award should have been made by the 30th June 1951 and not later and having been made on the 2nd July 1951 was therefore beyond time and invalid
This argument might well have prevailed but for the provisions of section 10 of the U P General Clauses Act 1904
That section provides  Where by any United Provinces Act any act or proceeding is directed or allowed to be done or taken in any court or office on a certain day or within a prescribed period then if the court or office is closed on that day or the last day of the prescribed period the act or proceeding shall be considered as done or taken in due time if it is done or taken on the next day afterwards on which the court or office is open
 The Industrial Court was closed on the 30th June 1951 which was declared a public holiday
The 1st July 1951 was a Sunday and it was competent to the Industrial Court to pronounce its decision on the next 276 afterwards on which the Industrial Court was n ie the 2nd July 1951
Prima facie therefore award which was pronounced on the 2nd July 1 was well within time
The only thing which Shri Khaitan counsel for the appellant urged before us therefore was that the Industrial Court was not a court within the meaning of section 10 of the U P General Clauses Act The court according to his submission could only be construed mean a court in the hierarchy of the civil courts the State and an Industrial Court did not fall hin that category
We are unable to accept this intention of Shri Khaitan
The Uttar Pradesh industrial Disputes Act 1947 was an Uttar Pradesh t
The General Order dated the 15th March 1951 which provided inter alia for the reference of the industrial dispute for adjudication and the manner in which it was to be adjudicated was promulgated by e U P Government in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by section 3 d of the Act
Paragraph 9 of the General Order provided for the decision ing pronounced by the Industrial Tribunal in open urt and we fail to understand how it could ever be ged that the Industrial Tribunal was not a court ithin the meaning of section 10 of the U P General lauses Act
If the Industrial Tribunal was thus a ourt within the meaning of section 10 of the U P General Clauses Act the court was closed on the 30th ane 1951 as also on the 1st July 1951 and the decion could be pronounced by the Industrial Court on ie next day afterwards on which it was open ie on ne 2nd July 1951
In our opinion therefore the ecision which was pronounced on the 2na July 951 was well within time and was valid and binding  in the parties
The above decision is determinative of this appeal and the appeal will therefore stand dismissed with costs
Appeal dismissed
Agent for the respondents and the intervener C P Lal


Summary:
Section 51 of the Central Provinces Local Self Government Act 1920 empowered a district council subject to the previous sanction of the local Government to impose any tax toll or rate other than those specified in SS
24 4849 and 50
 On March 12 1935 an Independent
Mining Local Board functioning in the area in which the petitioners were working certain mines situated therein and having vested in it all the powers of a district council resolved to impose a tax on coal coal dust and coke manufactured at the mines or sold within the territorial jurisdiction of the Board
The petitioners who were served with notices of demand requiring them to pay certain sums of money as the tax due by them for despatches of coal from their mines challenged the legality of the levy of the tax on the grounds inter alia 1 that the Act which by section 51 authorised the imposition of the tax had been passed by the local legislature without the previous sanction of the Governor General thereby contravening section 80A3 of the Government of India Act 1915 and that even if it was found that the Act was validly passed before the coming into force of the Government of India Act 1919 which introduced section 80A into the Act of r 1915 the power conferred by section 51 to levy tax was exercised only in 1935 and by that date S80 A had been introduced into the Government of India Act1915 and that thereafter there could be no legal imposition of a tax without the previous sanction of the Governor General being obtained 2 that section 51 Of the Central Provinces Local Self Government Act 1920 on its language and in the context of other provisions referred to in that section did not authorise the levy of a tax of the nature of the coal tax and 3 that in any case the tax ceased to be legally leviable after the coming 2 into force of the Government of India Act 1935 and of the Constitution of India since a tax like that in question could be in posed only by the Central Government
Held 1 that the Central Provinces Local Self Government Act 1920 having received the assent of the Governor General its validity cannot be challenged in view of the saving clauses in the proviso to section 80A3 and section 842 of the Government of India Act 1915
2 that the validity of Central Provinces Local Self Government Act 1920 when enacted not being open to any objection under the Government of India Act 1915 any subsequent amendments to the latter Act could not in any manner affect its continued validity and operation
3 that on the proper construction Of section 51 of the Act of 1920 the levy of a coal tax is not excluded from the purview of the local authority
4 that the continued levy of the tax in question even after the coming into force of the Government of India Act 1935 and the Constitution of India is valid in view of section 143 Of the Act of 1935 and article 227 of the Constitution