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

1. These three appeals are directed against an order of the Industrial Court, Madhya Pradesh, in three appeals from an order made by one Mr. I. B. Sanyal, who was the Certifying Officer, under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 hereinafter referred to as "the Central Standing Orders Act." By this order made on August 6, 1962, Mr. Sanyal had certified the draft standing orders submitted by the General Manager, Bhilai Steel Project, Madhya Pradesh. On behalf of the several Unions, including the three Unions, who are the respondents before us, an objection was raised that Mr. Sanyal had no jurisdiction to certify the Standing Orders inasmuch as the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Workmen (Standing Orders) Act, 1959 applied to this industry and not the Central Standing Orders Act. Mr. Sanyal overruled this objection and passed his order, as already stated, on August 6, 1962 certifying the draft standing orders. The Industrial Court, Madhya Pradesh, to which the Unions appealed against the order of certification has however held that Mr. Sanyal had no jurisdiction to certify the Standing Orders and it was the Labour Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh, who was competent to certify these. Allowing the appeals the Industrial Court set aside the order of the Certifying Officer as void, being without jurisdiction. It is against this order that the present appeals have been filed after obtaining special leave of this Court.

Court's reasoning:
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that S. 25 of the Madhya Pradesh General Clauses Act could not save the notification in question after the 1947 Act was repealed. That sectionany enactment is repealed and re-enacted by a Madhya Pradesh Act with or without modification, then, unless it is otherwise expressly provided, any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, regulation, form or bye-law made or issued under the repealed enactment shall, so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions re-enacted, continue in force, and be deemed to have been made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted, unless and until it is superseded by any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, regulation, form or bye-law made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted.It appears clear to us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.