Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: article 239aa in Sh. Suresh Kumar vs M/S Richlook Garments Pvt. Ltd on 19 January, 2019Matching Fragments
25. We have noted above that so far as Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act is concerned, it is a legislative amendment which had been proposed by the Legislative Assembly of the Government of NCT of Delhi which was reserved for consideration of the President and stands enacted only after the assent of the President was received on 13th July, 2003. In view of the position declared by the first proviso to clause 3C of Article 239AA, so far as Section 10(4A) is concerned, the same would prevail in the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
28. Even if it could be held that there was a repugnancy between them, by virtue of the operation of the proviso to Article 239AA(3)
(c), Section 10(4A) being a law made by the Legislative Assembly of the Government of NCT of Delhi which was reserved for consideration of the President and having received his assent on 13th July, 2003 and stands enacted thereafter, would prevail over the central legislation.
In view of above discussion, the case cannot be discarded simply on the technicality that the claimant had not approached the Conciliation officer U/s 2A(2) of ID Act 1947 before invoking the jurisdiction of this court directly.