Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

87. Having heard learned counsels in details, we are of the view that the arguments based on repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution are misplaced as there is no repugnancy between the two enactments.

88. When the State sends a Bill for assent of the Hon'ble President, the Note forwarded to the Hon'ble President by the State must not only http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No.34236 of 2019 etc. batch show what is the repugnancy between the Central act and the State law, but must specify the laws in respect of which it seeks the assent of the Hon'ble President to overcome the potential repugnancy.

89. There is no material to show that at the time when the State sought Presidential assent in respect of the Private School Regulation Act, 1973, it intended to remove any potential repugnancy between the 1973 Act and the ESI Act, 1948. Unless the Central Government is impleaded as a party and notice is served on the Central Government (Attorney General), it would remain a mystery as whether the Hon'ble President had been apprised of the repugnancy. The Hon'ble President while according assent to the 1973 Act, in pith and substance, has accorded assent only in relation to the subject matter of regulating of educational institutions and the conditions of service of the employees therein, as the Hon'ble President cannot be presumed to have considered a specific legislation of general application qua the benefits of health and insurance that stood covered under the ESI Act.

93. There is no pleading qua repugnancy by the petitioners. In the absence of proper pleadings and proper parties before this Court, the petitioners cannot urge the said ground before this Court and this Court cannot go into the question of repugnancy in this batch of cases.

94. The learned Advocate General emphasised the words in Section 1(4) of the ESI Act that "it shall apply, in the first instance, to all factories (including factories belonging to the Government other than seasonal http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No.34236 of 2019 etc. batch factories..." and the proviso to Section 1(4), which says "Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to a factory or establishment belonging to or under the control of the Government whose employees are otherwise in receipt of benefits substantially similar or superior to the benefits provided under this Act. Thus, it is submitted that if a factory or establishment is belonging to or under the control of the Government and if their employees are in receipt of benefits, which are substantially similar or superior, they come out of the purview of the Act.

106. In Krishna District Co-operative Marketing Society Limited Vs. N.V.Purnachandra Rao, 1987 (4) SCC 99, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the aspect of repugnancy between a State law that has received assent and the Central Act in the following manner :

"8. We shall now proceed to consider the merits of the contention that the State Act which is a later Act and which has received the assent of the President should prevail over the provisions of Chapter V-A of the Central Act. The above contention is based on http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No.34236 of 2019 etc. batch Article 254(2) of the Constitution and the argument is that the provisions of Section 40 which deal with termination of service in a shop or an establishment contained in the State Act which is enacted by the State legislature in exercise of its powers under Entry 22 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution being repugnant to the provisions contained in Chapter V-A of the Central Act which is an earlier law also traceable to Entry 22 of the List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution should prevail as the assent of the President has been given to the State Act. It is true that the State Act is a later Act and it has received the assent of the President but the question is whether there is any such repugnancy between the two laws as to make the provisions of the Central Act relating to retrenchment ineffective in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is seen that the State Act does not contain any express provision making the provisions relating to retrenchment in the Central Act ineffective insofar as Andhra Pradesh is concerned. We shall then have to consider whether there is any implied repugnancy between the two laws. Chapter V-A of the Central Act which is the earlier law deals with cases arising out of lay off and retrenchment. Section 25-J of the Central Act deals with the effect of the provisions of Chapter V-A on other laws inconsistent with that chapter. Sub-section (2) of Section 25-J is quite emphatic about the supremacy of the provisions relating to the rights and liabilities arising out of lay off and retrenchment. These are special provisions and they do not apply to all kinds of termination of services. Section 40 of the State Act deals generally with termination of service which may be the result of misconduct, closure, transfer of establishment etc. If there is a conflict between the special provisions contained in an earlier law dealing with retrenchment and the general provisions contained in a later law generally dealing with terminations of service, the existence of repugnancy between the two laws cannot be easily presumed. In Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes (12th edn.) at page 196 it is observed thus: