Case: General Manager, Bhilai Steelproject, Bhilai Vs. Steelworkers' Union, Bhopal And 0 Rs

Government was not given to the application of this Act, the Madhya Pradesh Act XIX of 1959, to Bhilai. At the same time, it is not open to dispute before us that the Steel Industry at Bhilai was an industrial establishment under the control of the Central Government. There was a faint attempt on the part of the learned Counsel, who appeared before us on behalf of the respondents, to suggest that the Steel Industry at Bhilai was not under the control of the Central Government. No such point appears to have been raised either before Mr. Sanyal or the Industrial Court. So, we did not permit the respondents to raise this point for the first time here. It may also be mentioned in this connection that in the very notification made by the Madhya Pradesh Government on July 22, 1958, that Government made the definite statement that the Steel Industry at Bhilai was carried on under the authority of the Central Government. We think it reasonable to presume for the purpose of these appeals that this statement made by the Government of Madhya Pradesh was correct. It follows therefore that the Bhilai Steel Industry was an industrial establishment under the control of the Central Government within the meaning of the proviso to S. 1. Sub-s. (3) of Act XIX of 1959 and consequently in the absence of the consent of the Central Government it did not apply to the Bhilai Steel Industry. On and after December 31, 1960, therefore neither S. 30 of the 1947 Act nor Act XIX of 1959 applied to the Bhilai Steel Industry. There is no 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 1946.6. This continued to be the position till November 25, 1961 when Act XIX of 1959 was repealed and was replaced by the Madhya Pradesh Act XXVI of 1961, the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Establishment Standing Orders Act, 1961.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 the following provision:"Provided that it shall not apply to an undertaking carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or a railway administration or a mine or an oil field.7. The effect of this was that Act XXVI of 1961 which became applicable to the Bhilai Steel Industry on November 25, 1961 ceased to be applicable to the Bhilai Steel Industry on and from April 29, 1962, when the President assented to the Amending Act. After this date the position again became the same as it was immediately before the Madhya Pradesh Act 26 of 1961 came into force. That is, none of the Madhya Pradesh Acts about the standing orders was applicable to the Bhilai Steel Industry. So, the field was open for the Central Standing Orders Act to operate in respect of the Bhilai Steel Industry on and from the date when the Madhya Pradesh Act V of 1962 came into force.8. We have therefore reached the conclusion that for sometime before August 6, 1962 when the order of certification was passed, the Certifying Officer under the Central Government Standing Orders Act had become competent to certify the standing orders for the Bhilai Steel Industry.9. The Industrial Court took note of the position that on the matter of the standing orders the 1947 Act was repealed by the 1959 Act with effect from December 31, 1960. It was however of opinion that there being no specific saving clause in the Act of 1959 as regards the notification of July 22, 1958, the Act of 1947 applied to the 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.10. 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 re-enacted by a Madhya Pradesh Act with or without modification, then, unless it is otherwise expressly provided, any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, regulation, form or bye-law made or issued under the repealed enactment shall, so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions re-enacted, continue in force, and be deemed to have been made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted, unless and until it is superseded by any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, regulation, form or bye-law made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted.11. It appears clear to us that the effect of the proviso to S. 1, sub-s. (3) of Act XIX of 1959 being that this new Act - the re-enacted legislation - did not apply to Bhilai the notification already issued under the old Act was clearly inconsistent with the new legislation, Section 25 of the Madhya Pradesh General Clauses Act was therefore of no avail and could not save that notification.12. For the reasons mentioned above, we have come to the conclusion that though on June 9, 1960, when the draft standing orders were submitted to the Certifying Officer under the Central Standing Orders Act the Certifying Officer had no jurisdiction to deal with them, the Officer had acquired jurisdiction in the matter before August 6, 1962, when he passed the order certifying the standing orders.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]10. 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 sectionany enactment is repealed and re-enacted by a Madhya Pradesh Act with or without modification, then, unless it is otherwise expressly provided, any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, regulation, form or bye-law made or issued under the repealed enactment shall, so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions re-enacted, continue in force, and be deemed to have been made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted, unless and until it is superseded by any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, regulation, form or bye-law made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted.It appears clear to us that the effect of the proviso to S. 1, sub-s. (3) of Act XIX of 1959 being that this new Act - the re-enacted legislation - did not apply to Bhilai the notification already issued under the old Act was clearly inconsistent with the new legislation, Section 25 of the Madhya Pradesh General Clauses Act was therefore of no avail and could not save that notification.12. For the reasons mentioned above, we have come to the conclusion that though on June 9, 1960, when the draft standing orders were submitted to the Certifying Officer under the Central Standing Orders Act the Certifying Officer had no jurisdiction to deal with them, the Officer had acquired jurisdiction in the matter before August 6, 1962, when he passed the order certifying the standing orders.