I.D. Dua, J. - (1.) In these two appeals on certificate of fitness, challenge is directed against the view taken by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court on appeal in disagreement with that of a learned Single Judge of that Court on the interpretation of Section 16 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act of 1957 and Section 6A of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act of 1947.
(2.) The relevant facts may first be briefly stated. In June 1956 there was a strike in the glass factory of the appellant, M/s. Munshi Lal Beni Ram Glass Works, at Ferozabad. As a result the factory was closed down for some time. In August 1956 a settlement was reached with the workers and it became possible to reassume operations from August 31, 1956. The workers were asked to report personally, latest by August 26, 1956, to show their willingness to work. According to the appellant, Lal Khan, one of the workers, failed to register his willingness to work before the appointed day, and indeed he did not care to report in spite of a messenger having been sent to him requiring his attendance. In his place one Jang Jit was thereupon employed and intimation of this fact duly sent to Lal Khan. This gave rise to a controversy between Lal Khan and the employers with the result that the State Government purporting to act under Sections 3, 4 and 8 of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act referred the following dispute to the Adjudicator: Whether the employers have wrongly and/or unjustifiably refused employed to Shri Lal Khan with effect from 28/29th August, 1957 If so, to what relief is he entitled Soon after the reference the appellant presented a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court (C.W. No. 899 of 1957) challenging its validity principally on the ground that there was no industrial dispute within the contemplation of the Industrial Disputes Act. As interim stay of the proceedings was declined, the proceedings before the adjudicator continued and on December 31, 1957 the adjudicator gave his award. This was followed by an order of the State Government dated January 28, 1958 enforcing the award under Sections 3 and 6(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The award and the order of the State Government were also challenged by the appellant by means of a writ petition in the High Court (C.W. No. 1025 of 1958). Though principally in this writ petition the power of the State Government to enforce the award was questioned, challenge to the order of reference was also reiterated. A learned Single Judge allowed this later writ petition on January 28, 1958, holding that the State Government had no power to enforce the award in question. According to the learned Single Judge the old Section 6 having been replaced by a new section 6 by U.P. Act I of 1957, it was not a case of repeal simpliciter and therefore old Section 6 could not be resorted to by relying on Section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act.
(3.) On the matter having been taken on special appeal a Division Bench of the High Court following its earlier decision reported as Central Distillery and Chemical Works Ltd. Meerut v. State of V.P., AIR 1964 All 156 reversed the order of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition.;