KISHOREBHAI KHEMANCHAND GOYAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the impugned judgment, the Gujarat High Court held that notwithstanding enactment of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") the obligation to comply with the requirement of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 (for short 'the Establishments Act') did not get wiped out.

(2.) Though the fine that was imposed on the appellant is not very much in terms of money, the appellant contended that the problem is of recurring nature and, therefore, the issues should be settled. It was contended that there was divergence in views of several High Courts. The Patna High Court in Bihar State Road Transport Corporation v. Orang Bahadur (AIR 1968 Pat page 200) and Amarnathsingh v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bihar (AIR 1970 Pat page 269 (FB)) held that the enactment of Act did away with the requirement to comply with requirements of Establishments Act by applying logic of implied repeal. The Bombay High Court also held likewise in the Corporation of the City of Nagpur through Shop Inspector v. M/s. Inland Carriers, Nagpur and another (1987 Lab LJ 270). But a different view was adopted by the Gujarat High Court in the impugned judgment which differed from the view of Patna High Court and Bombay High Court.

(3.) In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there must be a definite legislative intent that two statutes should operate in respect of identical issues. The Establishments Act has been rendered repugnant by enactment of the Act. Reference is made to Section 37 of the Act to submit that by necessary implication there was repeal of the Establishments Act. Both these statutes fall under Entry 24 of List III (the Concurrent List) of VII Schedule to the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') and, therefore, it is but natural to presume that there was a repeal by implication.