Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 490 of 1965. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated April 30	 1964 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 39 of 1963. section T. Desai	 P. B. Patwari	 and O. C. Mathur	 for the appellants. Respondent No. 2 appeared in person. H. R. Gokhale	 section P. Nayyar for R. H. Dhebar	 for respondent No. 3. The Judgment of the Court	 was delivered by Bhargava	 J. The appellants in this appeal are the Ahmedabad Mill owners Association	 of which all the cotton mills in Ahmedabad local area are members	 including the second appellant	 the Nagd Mills Ltd. The third respondent	 the Textile Labour Association	 Bhadra	 Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Union") represents the workmen employed in the various mills which are members of the first appellant Association. Under Standing Orders 	Settled under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act	 1946 (Bombay Act XI of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")	 conditions of service	 including those relating to leave	 were prescribed in view of clause 6 of Schedule 1 of the Act. These Standing Orders were settled at a time when this clause 6 of the First Schedule to the Act read as follows: "Conditions	 Procedure and Authority to grant leave." Subsequently	 Schedule 1 was amended so as to read as: "Procedure and authority to grant leave	 and simultaneously, clause 11 was added in Schedule 11 which read as: All matters pertaining to leave and holidays	 other than those specified in items 6 and 7 in Schedule 1. " Consequent to this amendment in the Schedules	 matters pertaining to leave could	 thereafter	 no longer be prescribed by Standing Orders	 which were confined to matters contained in Schedule Iorly. By a letter dated 21st April		 1961	 the Union gave notice to the first appellant	 desiring that changes be made as specified in the Annexure to this letter. Those changes sought in the Annexure related to grant of privilege leave	 sick leave	 casual leave	 and pay in lieu of privilege leave to all workers employed in the local textile industry in the same manner in which	 under the earlier Standing 439 Orders	 the clerical and some other staff were granted these benefits. This notice was given by the Union under section 42(2) of the Act. The dispute was not amicably settled	 and consequently	 the matter was referred for conciliation. The conciliation proceedings also failed	 and	 thereupon	 the Conciliator	 on 23rd June	 1961	 issued a certificate that he had come to the conclusion from the discussions which the parties had before him that the dispute ' was not capable of being settled by conciliation. Thereupon	 by the letter dated 29th July	 1961	 the Union referred the dispute to the Industrial Court under section 73A of the Act. Before the Industrial Court	 various pleas were taken on behalf of the appellants	 and some of these pleas were the subject matter of preliminary issues which were decided before the Industrial Court could proceed to give the final Award. Though a number of such preliminary issues were decided by the Industrial Court	 we are only concerned with two such issues	 as they were the only two matters pressed before us on behalf of the appellants in this appeal. One issue raised was that section 73A of the Act was ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution as it granted a right to the Union to make a reference to the Industrial Court	 while no such right was granted to the employers. The second point urged was that the Act did not apply to the cotton mills which were members of the first appellant Association	 because it had not been made applicable to them under section 2(4) of the Act	 while it could not become applicable to them under section 2(3) of the Act	 because the Bombay Industrial Disputes Act	 1938	 was not in force in these industries immediately before the commencement of the Act. Both these points were decided by the Industrial Court against the appellants. Consequently	 the appellants moved a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in the High Court of Gujarat. The High Court rejected these preliminary pleas raised on behalf of the appellants and upheld the view of the Industrial Court that the reference was competent. The appellants have now come up to this Court under certificate granted by the High Court against this order of the High Court. As we have mentioned earlier	 the appellants had raised a number of pleas which were the subject matter of preliminary issues before the Industrial Court and several ' of them were the subject matter of the petition before the High Court also. In this Court	 however	 reliance has been placed only on the two pleas	 mentioned above. The first plea is based on the language of section 73A of the Act which	 on the face of it	 grants the right to a Union only to make a reference of an industrial dispute for arbitration to the Industrial Court and does not grant any such right to an employer. It was	 however	 urged on behalf of the respondents that	 in fact	 this section was introduced in the Act for the very purpose of placing the employers and the Union on terms of equality	 and that	 instead of creating any discrimination between them	 this section	 on the 440 contrary	 was necessary to satisfy the requirements of article 14 of the Constitution. To appreciate this submission made on behalf of the respon dents	 certain features of the Act have to be examined and their implication taken into account. Section 73A grants a right of making a reference of an industrial dispute for arbitration to the Industrial Court only to "a registered union which is a representative of employees and which is also an approved union. " Further	 under the proviso to that section	 the reference cannot be made if the employer offers in writing before the Conciliator to submit the dispute to arbitration under the Act and the Union refuses to agree to it. Two other conditions attached are that the dispute must first be submitted to the Conciliator and can be referred for arbitration to the Industrial Court only when the Conciliator certifies that the dispute is not capable of being settled by conciliation	 and that no such dispute is to be referred if	 under any provisions of the Act	 it is required to be referred to the Labour Court for its decision. It is the effect of all these detailed provisions	 laying down limitations for reference under section 73A	 that requires examination. Under section 12 of the Act	 the Registrar has to maintain registers of unions registered by him and a list of approved unions. A Union is entitled to registration only if	 during the whole of the period of three calendar months immediately preceding the calendar month in which it so applies	 the membership of the Union has been not less than 15 per cent of the total number of employees employed in the industry	 when it can be registered as a Representative Union. In case there is no such Representative Union	 a Union can be also registered either as a Qualified Union or as a Primary Union. But it is clear from the language of section 73A that only a Representative Union has been given the right under that section. Further	 section 73A requires that the Union must also be an approved Union	 which means that the Union must comply with the requirements of section 23 of the Act and have its name entered in the approved list. Amongst the conditions required to be complied with by a Union to be brought. on the	 approved list	 the most important is one which lays down that its rules must provide that every industrial dispute	 in which a settlement is not reached by conciliation	 shall be offered to be submitted to arbitration	 and that arbitration under Chapter XI shall not be refused by it in any dispute. It will thus be seen that the right of making reference under section 73A is only granted to a Union which is registered as a Representative Union and	 being on approved list	 has already made rules laying down that the Union shall offer every industrial dispute for submission to arbitration and will also not refuse arbitration of any dispute if the employers offer to submit the dispute for arbitration under Chapter XI of the Act. Section 66 makes provision for submission of an industrial dispute for arbitration. Sub section (1) of that section gives the power to make a 441 reference to any person chosen by agreement by the disputing parties	 while sub s ' (2) gives the option that the submission of the dispute may be made to the arbitration of a Labour Court or the Industrial Court. Further	 sub section (5) of section 58 requires that before closing the conciliation proceedings before him	 the Conciliator shall ascertain from the parties whether they are willing to submit the dispute to. arbitration. These disputes	 to which these provisions apply	 can only be those not relating to matters in Schedules I and III	 because	 under sub section (1) of section 42	 and employer is given the right to give a notice of change in respect of any industrial matter specified in Schedule 11	 while	 under sub section (2) of section 42	 the employee is granted a similar '. right to give a notice if a change is desired in respect of an industrial matter not specified in Schedule I or Ill. In respect of matters covered by Schedules I and 111	 provision is made in sub section (4) of section 42 which lays down that such disputes are to be decided by making an application to the Labour Court; and	 as we have indicated earlier	 section 73A does not apply to disputes which are required to be referred to a Labour Court. The result of all these provisions is that section 73A of the Act comes into play only in cases where the dispute relates to matters not contained in Schedules I and III	 the dispute is not resolved by private agreement or by conciliation	 and there is no submission of the dispute to arbitration under section 66 of the Act. It is in this light that the provision which has to be made by the Union in its rules under section 23(1)(v) assumes importance. Whenever a dispute is raised either by an employer or by a Union which can ultimately take advantage of section 73A; of the Act	 the Union must invariably offer that the dispute be submitted to arbitration	 and	 in the alternative	 if the employer offers to submit the dispute to arbitration	 the Union must not refuse it. The result is that in respect of any such dispute	 the Union has no option but to offer or agree to arbitration of the dispute under section 66 of the Act. On the other hand	 there is no such limitation placed on the employer. There is no provision in the Act making it compulsory for the employer either to submit the dispute to arbitration or to agree to the submission of the dispute to arbitration when offered by the Union. Consequently	 whenever any industrial dispute arises	 the employer can always ensure arbitration of that dispute by making an offer to the Union under section 66 of the Act	 whereupon the Union is compelled to agree to submission of the dispute to arbitration. Clearly	 therefore	 there was no need to make any Provision empowering the employer to make a reference of the dispute for arbitration to the Industrial Court. On the other hand	 if a Union wants a dispute to be settled and even offers that the dispute be submitted to arbitration under section 66 of the Act	 the employer can refuse	 whereupon the Union would be left without any remedy. It is obvious that section 73A was enacted to fill this gap and place the Union on parity with the 442 employer so as to enable the Union to have any dispute settled by arbitration even when the employer does not agree to arbitration. These provisions granting. the rights to the employers and the Union are	 of course	 in addition to	 and without prejudice to	 the provisions contained in sections 72 and 73 of the Act	 under which the State Government is given the power to refer any industrial dispute between employees and employees	 and employers and employees to the arbitration of a Labour Court or the Industrial Court on the basis of a report made by the Labour Officer	 or even otherwise. These provisions in sections 72 and 73 leave the discretion with the State Government to make a reference in appropriate cases	 so that neither the employers nor the employees can	 as of right	 obtain a reference under these sections from the State Government. So far as they are concerned	 the provisions contained in the Act require that the disputes between them must first go before a Conciliator for conciliation	 and subsequently	 either party can exercise its option of offering the submission of the dispute to arbitration when such an enquiry is made from them by the Conciliator under section 58(5) of the Act. Thereafter	 if the offer is by an employer	 the Union	 under its rules	 is bound to accept the submission	 so that whenever an employer desires that a dispute be decided by arbitration	 the Union is compelled to agree to it. In the reverse case	 when a Union wants submission of the dispute to arbitration	 the employer has discretion not to agree	 and then only can the Union resort to section 73A and refer the dispute to the Industrial Court. This section	 in these circumstances did not at all require that the right granted to the Union should also be granted to the employer. In this connection	 two other points were urged by learned 	counsel for the appellants before us. One was that	 under section 66 of the Act	 the offer to submit the dispute for arbitration can be to any private individual also	 and this did not give the right to the employer to have it decided by an Industrial Court so as to be equated with the right of the Union to have it decided by the Industrial Court. We do not think that the provision contained in section 66 of the Act places the employer under any such handicap. Under sub section (2) of section 66	 the employer can straight away offer that the dispute be referred to the arbitration of the Industrial Court	 and thereupon 'the Union would be debarred from refusing to agree to that submission. In any case	 even if the Union were to refuse to agree to it	 the State Government will determine under s.71 of the Act whether the dispute should be referred to the arbitration of the Labour Court or the Industrial Court and refer it to that body. The mere fact that the Union may not agree to .he offer of the employer to submit the dispute for arbitration to the Industrial Court whereupon the State Government can direct that the arbitration be made by a Labour Court or the Industrial Court does not	 in our opinion	 place the employer in any disadvantageous position	 and we do not 443 think	 therefore	 that there was any requirement that the employer should also be given a right corresponding to the right of the Union under section 13A of the Act. The second point urged by the learned counsel was that if the dispute is referred to the Industrial Court by a submission under section 66(2) of the Act	 that Court will proceed to give its award in accordance with the provisions of the in view of section 68 of the Act	 while if the dispute is referred at the instance of a Union under s.73A of the Act	 the Industrial Court will deal with it as a .judicial Tribunal and will give its decision in accordance with the regulations made under section 92 of the Act. We consider that this submission is based on a misapprehension of the scope of section 92 of the Act. The rules and regulations made by the Industrial Court under section 92 are to govern the procedure of the Industrial Court in all proceedings before it irrespective of the fact whether those proceedings come up before it by a reference made by the State Government under. s	 72 or section 73 of the Act	 or by a reference made by the Union under section 73A of the Act	 or by a joint submission made by the parties under section 66(2) of the Act. Section 68 of the Act is in very general terms	 and lays down that proceedings in arbitration under the whole of the Chapter XI are to be in accordance with the provisions of the 	 in. so far as they may be applicable. The provisions of the have	 therefore	 been made applicable not only to arbitrations by submission under section 66 of the Act	 but also to arbitrations on references made by the State Government under section 72 or section 73 or a reference made by a Union under section 73A of the Act. If the submission or the reference happens to be to the Industrial Court	 that Court must follow the and regulations made under s.92	 and the provisions of the will only apply insofar as they may be applicable in view of those rules and regulations. Consequently	 whether a dispute is referred for arbitration to the Industrial Court by submission under section 66(2) of the Act	 or by a reference under section 73A of the Act	 that Court has to proceed in the same identical manner and the parties seeking the reference obtain the award in both cases under identical circumstances. In this connection	 the regulations made by the Industrial Court	 known as the Industrial Court Regulations	 1947 were brought to our notice. A perusal of these regulations shows that	 in the matter of procedure of the Industrial Court for dealing with arbitrations made by submissions under section 66	 or by references under other sections	 there is uniformity and no distinction is made between references under these different sections. The Industrial Court is required to proceed in the same manner in all cases and to give its decision under section 87 of the Act. It is significant that section 87	 defining the duties of the Industrial Court	 uses identical language in respect of all arbitrations by the Industrial Court; under clause (v) the duty 444 of the Industrial Court is laid down to be to decide industrial disputes referred to it in accordance with submissions registered under section 66 which provide for such reference to the Industrial Court	 and under clause (vi)	 the duty of the Industrial Court is similarly defined to be to decide industrial disputes referred to it under sections 71	 72	 73 or 73A. The ' Industrial Court	 in all cases	 is required to give a decision on the dispute	 and hence	 in all these proceedings	 the parties have identical rights in the matter of procedure of the Industrial Court of	 hearing and of obtaining a decision from it. This makes it clear that section 73A of the Act was required only to fill up a gap which would have existed	 leaving no remedy to a Union to obtain arbitration of a dispute if the employers did not agree to that arbitration	 and that no similar right was required to be conferred on the employers who	 under the other provisions of the Act	 could always obtain a reference of the dispute to arbitration by making a submission under section 66 which the Union was bound to agree to. The first point raised on behalf of the appellants has	 therefore	 no force and section 73A of the Act cannot be held to be invalid. On the second question	 it has rightly been urged on behalf of the appellants that the Act was not applied by the State Government to the industries run by the appellants	 whether generally or by specifying any local area by issue of a notification under sub section (4) of section 2 of the Act. On behalf of the respondents	 reliance was placed on sub section (3) of section 2 for urging that the Act became applicable to the industries run by the appellants	 because the Bombay Industrial Disputes Act	 1938 (hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Act of 1938") was in force in these industries immediately before the commencement of the Act. Admittedly	 the Bombay Act of 1938 was made applicable to the entire cotton industry throughout the Province of Bombay by various notifications issued in the year 1939 under that Act by the then Provincial Government. Ahmedabad	 where the industries of the appellants are situated	 was then a part of the Province of Bombay. The Bombay Act of 1938 was never entirely repealed. However	 the Central Government enacted the Industrial Disputes Act No. 14 of 1947 which received the assent of the Governor General on 17th March	 1947	 a id was brought into force from April 1	 1947. This Act did not	 in terms	 repeal the Bombay Act of 1938	 but the contention on behalf of the appellants is that the Bombay Act of 1938 and the Central both covered the same field of industrial disputes	 and consequently	 it should be held that the Bombay Act of 1938 became void on the ground of repugnancy with the under sub section (1) of section 107 of the Government of India Act	 1935. It was urged that the Bombay Act of 1938 as well as the were both enacted under the power conferred on 445 the Bombay Legislature and the Central Legislature under item 29 of of the Concurrent List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act	 1935. The principle relied upon by the appellants is that	 if two pieces of legislation cover the same field and each one of them contains a complete code making detailed provision for all aspects of the subject matter of the legislation	 repugnancy must be held to arise	 even though one Act may not	 in terms	 repeal the other and may not correspond section by section with the other. For this principle	 reliance was placed on the tests enumerated by Nicholas in his Australian Constitution	 2nd Edition	 p. 303	 to determine inconsistency or repugnancy between a State law and a Commonwealth law in Australia. The three tests were enumerated as follows: "(1) There may be inconsistency in the actual terms of the competing statutes; (2) Though there may be no direct conflict	 a State law may be inoperative because the Commonwealth law	 or the award of the Commonwealth Court	 is intended to be a complete exhaustive code; and (3) Even in the absence of intention	 a conflict may arise when both State and Commonwealth seek to exercise their powers over the same subject matter. " This principle was deduced from the decisions in Ex Parte McLean(1) and the State of Victoria and Others 'V. The Commonwealth of Australia and OtherS(2). Reliance was also placed on decisions of this Court in Zaverbhai Amaidas vs The State of Bombay(3)	 Ch. Tika Ramji & Ors. vs The state of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.(4) and Deep Chand vs The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others(5). In the last of these cases	 after quoting from Nicholas	 this Court held: 'Repugnancy between two statutes may thus be ascertained on the basis of the following three principles: (1) Whether there is direct conflict between the two provisions; (2) Whether Parliament intended to lay down an exhaustive code in respect of the subject matter replacing the Act of the State Legislature; and (3) Whether the law made by Parliament and the law made by the State Legislature occupy the same field." (1) ; (3) [1955] 1 S.C.R. 799. (5) (1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 8. (2) ; (4) (1956] 1 section C. R. 393. 446 Relying on these principles	 it has been urged that the intended to lay down an exhaustive code in respect of settlement of all industrial disputes	 and since the Bombay Act of 1938 was also on the same subject	 it must be presumed that the two statutes are repugnant	 so that the Bombay Act of 1938 became void with effect from 1st April	 1947 when the came into force. It has	 however	 been rightly pointed out by the High Court in the judgment under appeal that the Bombay Act of 1938 did not confine itself entirely to the subject of settlement of industrial disputes. Chapter V of that Act	 containing sections 26 to 33 deals with a matter which is not covered by the at all. These sections of the Bombay Act of 1938 lay. down the procedure for prescribing Standing Orders regulating the relations between an employer and his employees	 and for making changes therein. The prescribing of the Standing Orders and making of changes in them may not involve any industrial dispute at all. In fact	 at the first stage	 when Standing Orders are prescribed	 no question would arise of any industrial dispute requiring settlement. The 	 did not contain any provisions at all dealing with this subject of prescribing Standing Orders and making changes therein. Consequently	 even if the submission made on behalf of the appellants be accepted that the 	 is an exhaustive code dealing with the question of	 settlement of industrial disputes	 only those provisions of the Bombay Act of 1938 can be held to be repugnant and void on account of the repugnancy which also dealt with the same subject matter of settlement of industrial disputes. The provisions contained in Chapter V of that Act	 which had nothing to do with settlement of industrial disputes	 could not	 therefore	 be affected by the enactment of the 	 and hence	 the enforcement of the did not in any way affect the applicability of the provisions of Chapter V of the Bombay Act of 1938 to the industry run by the appellants. To the extent that Bombay Act of 1938 contained these provisions in Chapter V	 that Act	 therefore	 continued in force and also continued to apply to the industries now in question. It was also urged that the did not	 similarly	 make any provision for arbitration of industrial disputes and	 consequently	 the provisions of the Bombay Act of 1938	 relating to arbitration of industrial disputes	 could not be held to have become invalid. It is not necessary to examine this further question in view of our decision that at 1 east the provisions of Chapter V of the Bombay Act of 1938 continued in force. That Act did not stand repealed as a whole; at best	 only a part of that Act can be held to have ceased to be effective because of the repugnancy with the . But	 while another part of that Act continued to be in force	 the Bombay Act of 1938 also continued to be applicable to the cotton industry in Ahmedabad 447 with which we are concerned. When the Bombay Industrial Relations Act	 1946 came into force on 29th September	 1947	 therefore	 the Bombay Act of 1938 was applicable to these industries	 and consequently	 under sub section (3) of section 2 of the Act	 the Act became applicable to the industry ' of the appellants and did not require a notification under sub section (4) of section 2 to make it applicable. This point was also therefore	 rightly decided against the appellants	 and the judgment of the High Court must be upheld. The appeal is	 therefore	 dismissed with costs.

A dispute regarding amendment of rules relating to privilege leave etc. arose between the Ahmedabad Millowners ' Association and the union of workmen employed in the textile industry. After conceliation proceedings were declared by the Conciliator to have failed	 the union referred the dispute to the Industrial Court under section 73A of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act	 1946. The Industrial Court decided against the Millowners who filed a writ petition in the ' High Court and thereafter appealed to this Court. It was urged on behalf of the appellants that (i) section 73A was violative of article 14 of the Constitution since it gave a right to the workers union to make a reference but not to the employer (ii) the Act had not been made applicable to the cotton industry at Ahmedabad under section 2(4) and it was not applicable under section 2(3) because the Bombay Industrial Disputes Act	 1938 was repugnant to Central) and must be deemed to have been repealed. HELD:(i) Section 73A was not violative of article 14. Whenever any industrial dispute arises the employer can always ensure arbitration of that dispute by making an offer to the union under section 66 of the Act whereupon a registered and approved union is compelled to agree to submission of the dispute to arbitration. Clearly therefore there was no need to make any Provision empowering the employer to make a reference of the dispute for arbitration to the Industrial Court. On the other hand if a Union wants a dispute to be settled and even offers that the dispute be submitted to arbitration under section 66 of the Act	 the employer can refuse	 whereupon the union would be left without any remedy. It is obvious that section 73A was enacted to fill this gap and place the union on with the employer so as to enable the union to have any dispute = by arbitration even when the employer does not agree to arbitration. This section	 in these circumstances did not at all require that the right granted to the union should also be granted to the employer. [441 G H] There was no difference in the procedure to be followed by the Industrial Court in a reference under section 73A and that to be followed when the reference is under section 66. In both the procedure under section 92 had to be followed. [443 E F] (ii)Chapter V of the Bombay Industrial Disputes Act 1938 was not repugnant to the Central Act of 1947 and therefore continued to be in force	 and consequently under section 2(3) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act 1947 the latter Act became applicable to the industry of the appellants and did not require a notification under section 2(4) to make it applicable [446 G H; 447 A B] 438 Ex Parte McLean	 ; Victoria and Others vs The Commonwealth of Australia and Others	 ; 	 Zaverbhai Amaidas vs The State of Bombay	 [1955] 1 S.C.R. 799	 Ch. Tika Ramji & Ors. vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.	 and Deep Chand vs The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others	 [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 8.