A.N.Bhandari, C.J. - (1.) This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters patent raises the question whether the statutory provision which empowers the State Government to transfer a proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act from one Tribunal to another is mandatory or directory.
(2.) On the 31st October, 1957, the Punjab Government passed an order under Section 33-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, withdrawing all references pending before the Second Industrial Tribunal at Amritsar and transferring the same to the Industrial Tribunal at Jullundur. The petitioner questioned the validity of this order by means of a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution on the ground that the State Government had failed to specify the reason on which the order of transfer was based and had thus violated the provisions of Section 33-B of the statute. The learned Single Judge before whom the petition came up for hearing dismissed the petition and the petitioner has appealed.
(3.) Section 33-B of the Industrial Disputes Act in so far as it is relevant for the decision of this appeal is in the following terms:-- "33-B. (1) The appropriate Government may, by order in writing and for reasons to be stated therein, withdraw any proceeding under this Act pending before a Labour Court, Tribunal, or National Tribunal and transfer the same to another Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, for the disposal of the proceeding". Mr. Bhagirath Dass who appears for the petitioner contends that the power conferred on the State Government could have been exercised only in accordance with the provision of the statute by which it was bestowed and that it was not within the competence of the State Government to exercise general power of transfer conferred upon it and at the same time disregard the essential condition imposed on its exercise. Our attention has been invited to certain decisions which appears to propound the proposition that when a statute directs a thing to be done in a certain manner, that thing cannot, even though there are no negative words, be done in any other manner. In Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253(2) at p. 257, their Lordships of the Privy Council expressed the view that where power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Again in Cutler v. Wandsworth Stadium 1949 A C 398 at p. 407, the Board observed that where an Act creates an obligation and enforces the performance in a specified manner, it is a general rule that performance cannot be enforced in another manner. As nullification is the natural and usual consequence of disobedience, Mr. Bhagirath Dass contends that the order passed by the State Government without compliance with the statutory formalities must be deemed to be null and void.;