9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Improper delegation of legislative power. 2. Competence of the scheme makers to include penalty provisions. 3. Definition and liability of the "employer" under the Act. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: Improper Delegation of Legislative Power: Mr. Sen argued that the power to impose penalties for violations of the scheme, as provided in Section 9 of the Act and Clause 70 of the Scheme, constitutes improper delegation of legislative power and is void under the Constitution. The court examined whether the legislature can delegate the power to a non-legislative body to frame rules and declare violations as offenses punishable by penalties. The court referred to various American and English precedents, concluding that: 1. The legislature may confer upon a non-legislative body the power to prescribe rules and regulations as ancillary to a statute. 2. Such delegation is valid if the policy is declared and a primary standard is fixed by the legislature. 3. The legislature can prescribe that violations of such rules constitute offenses and prescribe penalties. 4. The legislature must prescribe the penalty or the standard of penalty to be imposed. The court found that the legislature had laid down the policy and was in control of it, thus passing the tests for valid delegation. Therefore, Section 9 is not ultra vires, and Clause 70 of the scheme is not an unconstitutional exercise of delegated power. Competence of the Scheme Makers to Include Penalty Provisions: Mr. Sen argued that the scheme, framed under Section 3 of the Act, should not include provisions for penalties, which are governed by Section 9. The court held that the preamble of the scheme correctly recites the power under which it was framed, and it was unnecessary to state the source of power in every clause. The court concluded that the exercise of power under Section 3, which includes the imposition of penalties as provided in Section 9, is valid. This point was dismissed. Definition and Liability of the "Employer" under the Act: The petitioners contended that they were not "employers" as defined by the Act and thus should not be liable. The court referred to the definition of "owner" under the Indian Mines Act 1923 and the Coal Mines Act 1952. It held that the petitioners had not renounced ownership and were sharing profits, checking accounts, and contributing to construction costs. Therefore, they could not escape liability as mere recipients of royalty, rent, or fine. The court determined that the petitioners were "owners" and thus "employers" under Section 2(e) of the Act, making them liable under the scheme. This point was also dismissed. Conclusion: All three points raised by the petitioners were dismissed. The application failed, and the Rule was discharged. The court directed that the copy of the agreement dated 12-1-1948 be kept as part of the record.
|
