- (1.) Heard Sri S.S. Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The writ petition is directed against the notice dated 17.4.2001 issued by Deputy Labour Commissioner, U.P., Gautambudh Nagar requiring petitioner to show cause as to why it should not be proceeded against for violating Section 25-M of Industrial Disputed Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1947") and Rule 41-A of U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 1957") by not obtaining permission of State before laying off its workman w.e.f. 28.5.2001.
(2.) It is contended that there is a difference in procedure in respect of lay off under the Central Act and State Act. The Apex Court has held in Engineering Kamgar Union v. M/s. Electro Steels Castings Ltd. and another, 2004 101 FLR 1086, that Chapter V-B of Central Act was inserted on or about 21.8.1984 whereby the State Act was enacted in the year 1983 inserting Section 6-V to 6-X. Since both the statutes are referable to List III of VIIth Schedule of the Constitution, in case of repugnancy and in absence of Presidential Assent, the Parliamentary Act would prevail but where assent has been given, State Act would prevail. In the present case, it is said that U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has received assent of President and, therefore, it shall prevail. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that this question with regard to lay off, whether State Act will prevail or not has also been considered and decided by this Court in N.K. Kejriwal and another v. State of U.P. and another, 2013 136 FLR 352 and in view thereof the impugned notice is liable to be set aside.
(3.) Learned Standing Counsel, however, sought to defend the notice contending that Central Act shall prevail and since there is non-compliance, therefore, notice has validly been issued by respondent No. 1.;