Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be shall transmit any award, order or settlement to a civil court having jurisdiction and such civil courts shall execute the award, order or settlements as if it were a decree passed by it"

5)In the light of the above amendment made by Government of India, I am directed to request you to offer your opinion to Government urgently." (Emphasis added)

16.As noted, the Parliament had enacted Central Act 24/2010 and amended the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 7 of the Amending Act reads as follows:

18.In view of the stand taken by the State, this Court directed the State Government to file a counter affidavit. Accordingly, a counter affidavit, dated Nil (2011) was filed on behalf of first and second respondents. The second petitioner Association also filed an objection statement dated 14.3.2011.

19.In view of the rival contentions, it has to be seen whether the prayer of the petitioners can be granted by this Court?

20.The dispute revolve around a short campus. Whether in view of the Central amendment Act 24/2010, dated 18.8.2010, the Tamil Nadu amendment Act 45/2008 (introducing Section 11-B) stood eclipsed in the light of the Article 254(1) of the Constitution and Whether the State Amendment was repugnant to the amendment made by the Central Act and that the Central law will prevail over the State law?

"21.The condition precedent to bring about repugnancy should be that there must be an amendment made to the principal Act under the Central Act and the previous amendment made by a State Legislature or a provision made by a High Court must occupy the same field and operate in a collision course. Since the State Act as incorporated by Act 37 of 1972 and the Explanations to Rule 5 by Act 57 of 1976, Rule 5 was not occupied by the Central Act in relation to the State of U.P., they remain to be a valid law. We may clarify at once that if the Central law and the State law or a provision made by the High Court occupy the same field and operate in collision course, the State Act or the provision made in the Order by a High Court being inconsistent with or in other words being incompatible with the Central Act, it becomes void unless it is re-enacted, reserved for consideration and receives the assent of the President after the Central Act was made by Parliament i.e. 10.9.1976."

32.In the present case, there is no conflict between the State amendment and the Central amendment made by the Parliament, though they occupy the same subject like the execution of awards of the labour court. But the State amendment also covers wider area of settlements coming within the meaning of Section 2(p) of the ID Act also. There is neither any apparent or real conflict between the two amendments. It must also be noted that both amendments related to procedure for executing Awards, orders or settlements. While the Parliament amendment enabled the jurisdictional civil court to execute such decrees in terms of Order 21 of CPC, the State Government had given powers only to the Labour Court.