Case: Munshi Lal Beni Ram Glass Works Vs. S. R. Singh, Assistant Labour Commissioner Andothers

as it existed prior to April 16, 1957 was intended to be kept alive. Now looking, at the position as it stood on April 16, 1957, it would be seen that s.16 was designed to save the pending proceedings from the operation of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1957 itself. If this Act was held to be inapplicable, then s. 6-A as amended thereby would be excluded and that section as it stood prior to the amendment by U.P. Act No., 1 of 1957 would automatically be attracted. The question arises: where was then the occasion to provide specifically for applying to the pending proceedings s, 6-A as it stood before U.P. Act No. 1 of 1957 ? It may, of course, be contended that it was so done by way of abundant caution. To us, however, it seems that to specifically incorporate s.6-A in s.16 in this situation is suggestive of the intention of the Legislature to extend the amended s.6-A to the proceedings contemplated by s.16. The enactment under consideration is not an example of ideal draftsmanship and the provisions under consideration may admit of two constructions. Assuming the two constructions to be possible we are not satisfied that the construction placed on this provision by the two Benches of the Allahabad High Court is clearly erroneous justifying reversal of the view taken therein and thereby unsettling the legal position. On the other hand to uphold the view of the learned Single Judge would also render the awards like the present unenforceable, which intention is difficult to impute to the Legislature. And then this point is not likely to arise very frequently in future, the matter being confined only to the cases which were pending when U.P. Act No. 1 of 1957 was enforced. The enactment is also confined in its operation to the State of U.P. alone.The appellants counsel next contended that the proceeding in question pending with the adjudicator could not be considered to be pending with the State Government and the State Government could not give effect to the decision of the adjudicator under s.16. It was argued that it was only the Authority before which the proceeding was actually pending immediately after the commencement of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1957 which was empowered to dispose it of and the proceeding in the present case being pending before an adjudicator, the State Government could not claim any power under this section. It was added that the State Government could also not be treated as the authority constituted under the said Act. In our, opinion the proceeding in question was clearly -pending before the adjudicator as contemplated by s.16. The adjudicator, therefore, could plainly proceed to. adjudicate upon the dispute. On his a judicious the provisions of s.6- A would be attracted and there under the State Government could enforce it. This submission of the appellant is, therefore, repelled. On the view that we have taken it is not necessary to decide whether the State Government is an authority constituted under the Act as envisaged by s.16 and also whether the proceeding in question could be considered to be pending before the State Government.7. The appellants counsel also submitted that without resort to s.17 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1957 the award could not be enforced. This argument too need not detain us as it does not arise on the view we have taken. We may, however, point out that s. 17 only provides for delegated legislation in certain circumstances and resort to s. 17 is not essential, or a condition precedent for enforcing the awards, as suggested on behalf of the appellant.The appellants learned Advocate as a last resort submitted that the decision of the adjudicator is not an award as defined in s.2(c) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act as amended by U.P. Act No. 1 of 1957. Now if U.P. Act No. 1 of 1957 is excluded from its application to pending proceeding under s.16 then the word award has to be liberally construed and so construed it would be covered by s. 6-A. The power conferred by ss. 16 and 6A has to be construed as real and not illusory and it has to be interpreted so as to achieve the purpose for which it was conferred.8. We must not be understood to accord our approval to the view of the learned Single Judge that s.6 of the Principal Act having not been repealed simpliciter, but having been replaced by a new section 6 by U.P. Act 1 of 1957, the principle underlying s.6(e) of the General Clauses Act cannot be attracted. In our opinion, this approach is not quite correct. Section 6 would seem to us to apply to a case of repeal even if there is a simultaneous enactment unless a contrary intention appears from the new enactment. As observed by this Court in the State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh([1955] 1 S.C.R. 893.) whenever there is a repeal of an enactment, the consequences laid down in section 6 of the General Clauses Act will follow unless, as the section itself says, a different intention appears. In the case of a simple repeal there is scarcely any room for expression of a contrary opinion. But when the repeal is followed by fresh legislation on the same subject we would undoubtedly have to look to the provisions of the new Act, but only for the purpose of determining whether they indicate a different intention. The line of enquiry would be, not whether the new Act expressly keeps alive old rights and liabilities but whether it manifests an intention to destroy them. We cannot therefore subscribe to the broad proposition that section 6 of the General Clauses Act is ruled out whenever there is a repeal-, of an enactment followed by a fresh legislation. Section 6 would be applicable in such cases also unless the new legislation manifests an intention incompatible with or contrary to the proposition of the section.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]Now looking, at the position as it stood on April 16, 1957, it would be seen that s.16 was designed to save the pending proceedings from the operation of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1957 itself. If this Act was held to be inapplicable, then s. 6-A as amended thereby would be excluded and that section as it stood prior to the amendment by U.P. Act No., 1 of 1957 would automatically be attracted. The question arises: where was then the occasion to provide specifically for applying to the pending proceedings s, 6-A as it stood before U.P. Act No. 1 of 1957 ? It may, of course, be contended that it was so done by way of abundant caution. To us, however, it seems that to specifically incorporate s.6-A in s.16 in this situation is suggestive of the intention of the Legislature to extend the amended s.6-A to the proceedings contemplated by s.16. The enactment under consideration is not an example of ideal draftsmanship and the provisions under consideration may admit of two constructions. Assuming the two constructions to be possible we are not satisfied that the construction placed on this provision by the two Benches of the Allahabad High Court is clearly erroneous justifying reversal of the view taken therein and thereby unsettling the legal position. On the other hand to uphold the view of the learned Single Judge would also render the awards like the present unenforceable, which intention is difficult to impute to the Legislature. And then this point is not likely to arise very frequently in future, the matter being confined only to the cases which were pending when U.P. Act No. 1 of 1957 was enforced. The enactment is also confined in its operation to the State of U.P.our, opinion the proceeding in question was clearly -pending before the adjudicator as contemplated by s.16. The adjudicator, therefore, could plainly proceed to. adjudicate upon the dispute. On his a judicious the provisions of s.6- A would be attracted and there under the State Government could enforce it. This submission of the appellant is, therefore, repelled. On the view that we have taken it is not necessary to decide whether the State Government is an authority constituted under the Act as envisaged by s.16 and also whether the proceeding in question could be considered to be pending before the Stateargument too need not detain us as it does not arise on the view we have taken. We may, however, point out that s. 17 only provides for delegated legislation in certain circumstances and resort to s. 17 is not essential, or a condition precedent for enforcing the awards, as suggested on behalf of the appellant.The appellants learned Advocate as a last resort submitted that the decision of the adjudicator is not an award as defined in s.2(c) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act as amended by U.P. Act No. 1 of 1957. Now if U.P. Act No. 1 of 1957 is excluded from its application to pending proceeding under s.16 then the word award has to be liberally construed and so construed it would be covered by s. 6-A. The power conferred by ss. 16 and 6A has to be construed as real and not illusory and it has to be interpreted so as to achieve the purpose for which it wasmust not be understood to accord our approval to the view of the learned Single Judge that s.6 of the Principal Act having not been repealed simpliciter, but having been replaced by a new section 6 by U.P. Act 1 of 1957, the principle underlying s.6(e) of the General Clauses Act cannot be attracted. In our opinion, this approach is not quite correct. Section 6 would seem to us to apply to a case of repeal even if there is a simultaneous enactment unless a contrary intention appears from the newobserved by this Court in the State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh([1955] 1 S.C.R. 893.) whenever there is a repeal of an enactment, the consequences laid down in section 6 of the General Clauses Act will follow unless, as the section itself says, a different intention appears. In the case of a simple repeal there is scarcely any room for expression of a contrary opinion. But when the repeal is followed by fresh legislation on the same subject we would undoubtedly have to look to the provisions of the new Act, but only for the purpose of determining whether they indicate a different intention. The line of enquiry would be, not whether the new Act expressly keeps alive old rights and liabilities but whether it manifests an intention to destroy them. We cannot therefore subscribe to the broad proposition that section 6 of the General Clauses Act is ruled out whenever there is a repeal-, of an enactment followed by a fresh legislation. Section 6 would be applicable in such cases also unless the new legislation manifests an intention incompatible with or contrary to the proposition of the section.