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the matter under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act to the Regional Conciliation Officer but that reference Was withdrawn on 28 October 1957 and a fresh reference was made on 10 December 1957.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 Ground 6 was that the original reference having been made and withdrawn by the State Government, the Deputy Labour Commissioner traversed beyond the scope of his authority in making a reference.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.;