Skip to content


E. Hill and Company (Private), Ltd. Vs. Its Employees - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1961)IILLJ187All
AppellantE. Hill and Company (Private), Ltd.
Respondentits Employees
Excerpt:
- - learned counsel for the state as well as for the respondents-employees asked for further time to meet this argument, but in view of the threadbare discussion of the relevant provisions, we did not consider it necessary to give any further time for the consideration, of this question. this is not a matter which affects only a particular individual like a sanction granted for the prosecution of an individual which can await proof at a latter stage......constitution or under any law made by parliament or the legislature of a state,shall be in the english language.(2) notwithstanding any thing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1), the governor of a state may, with the previous consent of the president, authorize the use of the hindi language, or any other language used for any official purpose of the state, in proceedings in the high court having its principal seat in that state:provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to any judgment, decree or order passed or made by such high court.(3) notwithstanding anything in sub-clause (6) of clause (1), where the legislature of a state has prescribed any language other than the english language for use in bills introduced in, or act a passed by, the legislature of the state or in.....
Judgment:

B. Dayal, J.

1. This is an appeal arising out of a writ petition filed by E. Hill and Company (Private), Ltd., against seven of its employees whom the company dismissed on account of indiscipline, etc. This gave rise to an industrial dispute and originally the Government referred the matter under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act to the Regional Conciliation Officer but that reference Was withdrawn on 28 October 1957 and a fresh reference was made on 10 December 1957. This fresh reference was actually made by the Deputy Labour Commissioner Purporting to exercise powers delegated to him by the State Government under Section 11A of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act. The present petition was filed by the employees of E. Hill and Company challenging that reference and praying that a writ of mandamus be issued to the Deputy Labour Commissioner (Industrial Relations), Kanpur, commanding him to withdraw, cancel or recall his order dated 10 December 1957, that the labour court be prohibited from proceeding with that reference or such other orders may be passed as may be deemed necessary. Several grounds were taken in the petition. Ground 6 was that the original reference having been made and withdrawn by the State Government, the Deputy Labour Commissioner traversed beyond the scope of his authority in making a reference. It was also alleged in grounds 1 and 2 that the State Government alone was authorized to form an opinion regarding the existence of an industrial dispute and this could not be delegated by the State Government to the Deputy Labour Commissioner nor was it so delegated and the duty of forming an opinion, in any case, could not be delegated to the Deputy Labour Commissioner. We are not concerned with the other grounds which have been canvassed at different stages, for we are disposing of the special appeal on the one ground alone that the Deputy Labour Commissioner who made the reference had not authority to do so. This argument, which has been accepted by us, has been raised for the first time in this special appeal but because it goes to the very root of the Commissioner's power on which no further evidence could have been possible, we have decided to entertain the argument and we have heard both the parties on this question. Learned Counsel for the State as well as for the respondents-employees asked for further time to meet this argument, but in view of the threadbare discussion of the relevant provisions, we did not consider it necessary to give any further time for the consideration, of this question.

2. To put the point in a nutshell, the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that there is no valid order in existence under which the delegation of powers under Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act can be said to have taken place. Section 11A of the said Act runs as follows:

The State Government may, by notification in the official gazette, direct that any power exercisable by it under this Act or rules made thereunder shall, in relation to such matters and subject to such condition if any, as may be specified in the direction, be exercisable also by such officer or authority subordinate to the State Government as may be specified in the notification.

Form this section, it is obvious that delegation has to be made by an order passed by the State Government under this Act and that order has to be published by notification in the official gazette. Article 348 of the, Constitution runs as follows:

348. (1) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this part, until Parliament by law otherwise provides,

(a) all proceedings in the Supreme Court and in every High Court,

(b) the authoritative texts--

(i) of all Bills to be introduced or amendments thereto to be moved in either House of Parliament or in the House or either House of the legislature of a State,

(ii) of all Acts passed by Parliament or the legislature of a State and of all Ordinances promulgated by the President or the Governor of a State, and

(iii) of all orders, rules, regulations and bylaws issued under this Constitution or under any law made by Parliament or the legislature of a State,

shall be in the English language.

(2) Notwithstanding any thing in Sub-clause (a) of Clause (1), the Governor of a State may, with the previous consent of the President, authorize the use of the Hindi language, or any other language used for any official purpose of the State, in proceedings in the High Court having its principal seat in that State:

Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to any judgment, decree or order passed or made by such High Court.(3) Notwithstanding anything in Sub-clause (6) of Clause (1), where the legislature of a State has prescribed any language other than the English language for use in Bills introduced in, or Act a passed by, the legislature of the State or in Ordinance promulgated by the Governor of the State or in any order, rule, regulation or bylaw referred to in Para, (iii) of that sub-clause, a translation of the same in the English language, published under the authority of the Governor of the State in the official gazette of that State, shall be deemed to be the authoritative text thereof In the English language under this article.

By Clause (iii) of Sub-article (1)(6) quoted above, the authoritative text of all orders, rules, regulations and bylaws issued under this Constitution or under any law made by the Parliament or the legislature of a State, shall be In English language. But this is modified slightly by Sub-article (3) which has authorized the State legislatures to have their proceedings in any language, but still it is necessary that an English translation of the Acts passed by the legislature of the State or Ordinances promulgated by the Governor of the State or any order, rule, regulation or bylaw referred to in Para. 3 of Article 1(b) shall be published under the authority of the Governor of the State in the official gazette and such English translation published under the authority of the Governor of the State In the official gazette shall be deemed to be the authorized text thereof in the English language. The combined result of both these provisions is that the authorized text of every legislation, order, rule or regulation must be in English language and if the original is In any language other than English, the authorized text shall be the English translation which has been published as provided therein.

3. The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant was that the present notification delegating the power which has been published in the extraordinary gazette of the State dated 20 May 1957 has not been published under the authority of the Governor and, therefore, it does not contain the authoritative text the order delegating the power and this not being the. authoritative text, there is nothing else on which the Court can rely for coming to the conclusion that the power has actually been delegated.

4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents was that it was a matter of fact whether the publication or not (sic) and in the question not having been raised at any earlier stage, no evidence could be produced before the Court for showing that this order has been published under the authority of the Governor and it was therefore prayed that the State be permitted time to prove by other evidence, at this stage, even if the question Is allowed to be raised, this notification was published under the authority of the Governor. We have carefully considered the contention of both the sides but we find ourselves unable to agree with this contention on behalf of the State. When the Constitution provides that certain orders could be originally passed in any language other than English but in any case the authorized text of that legislation shall be in English, it necessarily means that there shall be no other version of the legislation which can be considered, authoritative and which can be acted upon by anybody. Under Clause (3) of Article 348, the only translation of the regislation or order which can be treated as authorized is one which is published in the official gazette under the authority of the Governor. This being a matter of law affecting all the citizens in the State, the fact that a particular translation has been published under the authority of the Governor and is there* fore the authorized text of the law must be known to everybody immediately the law is published so that every citizen could conduct himself accordingly. This is not a matter which affects only a particular individual like a sanction granted for the prosecution of an Individual which can await proof at a latter stage. A sanction must be effective when it is produced before a court and it Is invited to take cognizance of the offence; even If it does not appear to be valid on its face, it is enough if its validity is shown to the court, when it is invited to take cognizance of the offence. Even when a court takes cognizance of it and the accused questions its validity when he appears to stand trial, the validity can be proved by the prosecution.

5. Thus this is not essential for a sanction to show on its face that it is valid In all respects. The position in respect of a law however is different; it takes effect and binds the public as soon as it is published in the gazette (in this case we are dealing with a law which comes into force as soon as it is published in the official gazette). In order that the public must recognize it as law and be governed by it as soon as it is published it must appear on its face to be a law valid in all respects. Consequently when a Governor makes an order in Hindi and an English translation of it is published in the official gazette, it must appear on the face of the publication that the translation was authorized by the Governor. This is not a matter which can await proof at a latter stage, in the case before us there is a mere publication of a translation of the order made in Hindi by the Governor but there is absolutely nothing to show that the Governor authorized the publication of this translation. For all one knows someone in the office of the Government or even the Governor might have prepared the translation of the Hindi order and might have on his own published it in the official gazette without the Governor even having seen it; therefore the publication does not appear to be one authorized by the Governor and consequently cannot be taken as an authorized text. In other words, there is no order made by the Governor authorizing the Deputy Labour Commissioner (Industrial Relations), Kanpur (respondent 9), to refer the dispute to the Gorakhpur Labour Court (respondent 10) and the Reference No. 1941 (Reference) (A.I.R.) 1956, dated 10 December 1957 Is without authority, The labour court had no jurisdiction to make any award on such a reference. We are informed that it has already made an award: It must be quashed as made without jurisdiction,

6. We, therefore, allow this special appeal and quash the award. Since we decide this special appeal on a question raised for the first time in this litigation we direct that the parties shall bear their costs themselves.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //