Case: M.L. Manchanda &amp; Ors Vs. Union Territory Of Chandigarh &amp; Ors

seriatim with all the three contentions raised by Mr. Ramamurthy. Before embarking on that task, we consider it appropriate to scan the scheme of the Act. Section 3 of the Act clearly states that the Act shall be applicable to houses constructed by the State Government for the occupation of industrial workers under the Industrial Housing Scheme subsidised by the Central Government. The scheme, as evident from the affidavit of the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Government, is meant for the benefit of the low aid industrial workers and economically weaker sections of the community. Section 9(1) of the Act provides that the occupation by any person of a house shall at all times be subject to such conditions relating to its occupation as may be prescribed, or as may be intimated from time to time by the Labour Commissioner. Section 7 of the Act sets out the circumstance s in which a person shall be treated to be in unauthorised occupation of any house. Clause (b) of the section explicity states that a person shall be deemed to be in unauthorised occupation "Where being an allottee he has by reason of cancellation of an allotment under sub-section (2) of section 9 ceased to be entitled to occupy the house". Sub-section (2) of section 9, which is necessary to be referred to at this stage and which because of the non-obstante clause contained in its opening part overrides all other laws for the time being in force, authorises the Labour Commissioner after giving notice to the allottee and considering the explanation tendered by him to cancel the allotment under which a house is held or occupied by him. Section 24 of the Act not only empowers the State Government generally to make rules to effectuate the purposes of the A ct but also specifically confers on it the power to make rules to provide inter alia for the manner of allotment of accommodation and conditions relating to its occupation [see section 24(2)(ii)] as also for the matters which are to be or may be prescribed [see section 24(2)(x)]. A conspectus of the aforesaid provisions of the Act leaves no room for doubt that the allotment of accommodation to an industrial worker is not unconditional but is subject to conditions which can be changed unilaterally by the Government from time to time by altering the rules in exercise of the powers conferred on it under section 24 of the Act. Section 7 of the Act which embodies a deeming provision gives a mandate to treat a person as an unauthorised occupant not only if he ceases to be an industrial worker under the Act but also if being an allottee, he ceases to be entitled to occupy the accommodation by reason of cancellation of the allotment under subsection (2) of section 9 of the Act. A combined reading of sections 7 and 9 of the Act goes to show that if at any time a person becomes an unauthorised occupant of the house by reason of his ceasing to be an industrial worker or by otherwise ceasing to fulfill any of the prescribed conditions then in force including the one relating to the limit of his income, he becomes amenable to action under section 9(2) of the Act. The result is that even though the allottee may continue to be an industrial worker, still the allotment under which he holds a house can be cancelled if his occupation becomes un-authorised on any one of the grounds laid down in section 7 of the Act. We are, therefore, satisfied that the impugned amendment which squarely falls within the purview of the aforesaid provisions of section 24 of the Act was validly made and the contention urged by Mr. Ramamurthy that it is ultra vires is misconceived and untenable. We may state here in passing that the aforesaid scheme being meant for the benefit of the low paid industrial workers and the number of the houses constructed thereunder being very limited, the Government could legitimately evolve the method which it did to disentitle industrial workers like the appellants whose monthly salaries appear to range between Rs. 974.71 and Rs. 1861.27 and the aforesaid respondents whose monthly income is also relatively large to retain the houses in question .The contention of Mr. Ramamurthi that the impugned rule is retroactive in operation is also devoid of merit. A careful study of the proviso to rule 4(3) of the Rules which appears to have been inserted to allay fears and remove misapprehensions would show that the rule is not intended to operate retrospectively on industrial workers who had been allotted and were in occupation of industrial houses immediately before the amendment of the Punjab Industrial Housing (Chandigarh First Amendment) Rules, 1972. It unequivocally states that allotment of an industrial worker who is in occupation of an industrial house in pursuance thereof immediately before the amendment of the Punjab Industrial Housing (Chandigarh First Amendment) Rules, 1972 shall not be cancelled without one months notice in writing. The proviso therefore clearly shows that the allotment of an industrial worker whose income exceeds Rs. 350/- per mensem is to stand cancelled not from the date when his income started exceeding Rs. 350/- per mensem but on the expiry of one months notice in writing o f the cancellation. The second contention raised by Mr. Ramamurthi is also, therefore, repelled.5. The third contention advanced by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants not having been raised before the High Court cannot be permitted to be raised at this stage. The contention can also not be allowed to be raised in view of the Presidential Order dated June 27, 1975 promulgated under clause (1) of Art. 35 9 of the Constitution suspending inter alia Article 14 of the Constitution for the period during which the proclamation of emergency made under clause (I ) of Article 352 of the Constitution on December 3, 1971 and on June 25, 1975 are both in force.6.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]A conspectus of the aforesaid provisions of the Act leaves no room for doubt that the allotment of accommodation to an industrial worker is not unconditional but is subject to conditions which can be changed unilaterally by the Government from time to time by altering the rules in exercise of the powers conferred on it under section 24 of the Act. Section 7 of the Act which embodies a deeming provision gives a mandate to treat a person as an unauthorised occupant not only if he ceases to be an industrial worker under the Act but also if being an allottee, he ceases to be entitled to occupy the accommodation by reason of cancellation of the allotment under subsection (2) of section 9 of the Act. A combined reading of sections 7 and 9 of the Act goes to show that if at any time a person becomes an unauthorised occupant of the house by reason of his ceasing to be an industrial worker or by otherwise ceasing to fulfill any of the prescribed conditions then in force including the one relating to the limit of his income, he becomes amenable to action under section 9(2) of the Act. The result is that even though the allottee may continue to be an industrial worker, still the allotment under which he holds a house can be cancelled if his occupation becomes un-authorised on any one of the grounds laid down in section 7 of the Act. We are, therefore, satisfied that the impugned amendment which squarely falls within the purview of the aforesaid provisions of section 24 of the Act was validly made and the contention urged by Mr. Ramamurthy that it is ultra vires is misconceived and untenable. We may state here in passing that the aforesaid scheme being meant for the benefit of the low paid industrial workers and the number of the houses constructed thereunder being very limited, the Government could legitimately evolve the method which it did to disentitle industrial workers like the appellants whose monthly salaries appear to range between Rs. 974.71 and Rs. 1861.27 and the aforesaid respondents whose monthly income is also relatively large to retain the houses in question .The contention of Mr. Ramamurthi that the impugned rule is retroactive in operation is also devoid of merit. A careful study of the proviso to rule 4(3) of the Rules which appears to have been inserted to allay fears and remove misapprehensions would show that the rule is not intended to operate retrospectively on industrial workers who had been allotted and were in occupation of industrial houses immediately before the amendment of the Punjab Industrial Housing (Chandigarh First Amendment) Rules, 1972. It unequivocally states that allotment of an industrial worker who is in occupation of an industrial house in pursuance thereof immediately before the amendment of the Punjab Industrial Housing (Chandigarh First Amendment) Rules, 1972 shall not be cancelled without one months notice in writing. The proviso therefore clearly shows that the allotment of an industrial worker whose income exceeds Rs. 350/- per mensem is to stand cancelled not from the date when his income started exceeding Rs. 350/- per mensem but on the expiry of one months notice in writing o f the cancellation. The second contention raised by Mr. Ramamurthi is also, therefore,third contention advanced by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants not having been raised before the High Court cannot be permitted to be raised at this stage. The contention can also not be allowed to be raised in view of the Presidential Order dated June 27, 1975 promulgated under clause (1) of Art. 35 9 of the Constitution suspending inter alia Article 14 of the Constitution for the period during which the proclamation of emergency made under clause (I ) of Article 352 of the Constitution on December 3, 1971 and on June 25, 1975 are both in force.