9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 3 of the United Provinces Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. Validity of the general orders dated March 15, 1951, passed under Section 3 of the Act. 3. Validity of the references made in the cases under the general orders. Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutionality of Section 3 of the United Provinces Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: The main contention of the appellants was that Section 3 is unconstitutional as it delegates essential legislative functions to the Government concerning clauses (c), (d), and (g). The appellants relied on the observations of Kania C.J. in In re The Delhi Laws Act, 1912, which emphasized that the essentials of legislative function are the determination of legislative policy and its formulation as a rule of conduct. The court analyzed whether the legislature in this case performed its essential legislative function of determining and choosing the legislative policy and formally enacting that policy into a binding rule of conduct. It was concluded that Section 3 lays down the conditions under which the Government can act, the manner of acting, and what should be done when acting. The legislature indicated its policy and made it a binding rule of conduct, leaving the rest of the details to the Government to prescribe by means of subordinate rules within prescribed limits. Therefore, the court held that Section 3 is not unconstitutional as it does not involve excessive delegation of legislative power. 2. Validity of the General Orders Dated March 15, 1951, Passed Under Section 3 of the Act: The appellants argued that the general orders lacked a recital of the conditions precedent as required by Section 3, making them invalid. The court noted that Section 3 gives power to the State Government to make provisions by general or special order if it is necessary or expedient for securing public safety or convenience, maintenance of public order, supplies and services essential to the life of the community, or maintaining employment. The court considered whether it is necessary for the satisfaction to be recited in the order itself and whether the absence of such recital makes the order invalid. The court concluded that while it is desirable to have a recital, the absence of it does not make the order ab initio invalid. The defect can be remedied by showing, through other means, that the conditions precedent were satisfied. In this case, the State Government filed an affidavit confirming that the necessary satisfaction was there before the orders were passed. Therefore, the court held that the general orders dated March 15, 1951, are valid under Section 3 of the Act. 3. Validity of the References Made in the Cases Under the General Orders: Given that Section 3 was found constitutional and the general orders valid, the court did not find it necessary to delve into whether the High Court was correct in holding that the orders of references were special orders under Section 3. The court concluded that the references made under the general orders were valid. Conclusion: The appeals were dismissed, and it was held that Section 3 of the United Provinces Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is constitutional. The general orders dated March 15, 1951, passed under Section 3, are valid. Consequently, the references made in the cases under these general orders are also valid. No order as to costs was passed.
|
