FIRST FLIGHT COURIERS LIMITED-89, A.M. PLAZA, 1ST AND 2ND FLOOR, AIRPORT ROAD, BANGALORE 360 017. REP. BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER SRI DIWAKAR S. AND SRI V.U. KHAN S/O SRI. B.U. KHAN Vs. SMT. K. PADMAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge to the validity of Section 3 of the Karnataka Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1988, is grounded on the premise that Section 10 -A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 was not brought to the notice of the President of India, when assent was accorded to the Karnataka Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1988. Though it is submitted that observations of the constitution bench of the Apex Court at paragraph 77 in Kaiser -I -Hind Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. National Textile Corporation (Maharashtra North) Ltd. and Others, AIR 2002 SC 3404 , in the circumstances applies, in my opinion, is unavailable to the petitioner for the following reasons.

(2.) THE respondent State represented by learned counsel produced the original file pertaining to the Bill, Karnataka Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1988, wherein, at page 180, is a letter dated 16.6.1988 of the Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Department of Law and Parliamentary Affairs, addressed to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, to obtain the assent of the President to the Bill, specifically indicating the reasons for the Bill, including the existing Section 10 -A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and its inconsistency.

(3.) A learned Single Judge by order dt. 9/4/2010 in W.P. No. 33473/2009, Oberoi Hotel Vs. H.R. Vincent, observed that the Karnataka Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act. 1988 was given assent to by the President on 24.12.1988 and published in the Karnataka Gazette Extra Ordinary on 15.7.1992, while Section 10 -A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 was inserted in the year 1996, by which time, the State Act was already in force and therefore, the provisions in the State Act prevail over the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, insofar as it relates to payment of the subsistence allowance and that the subsistence allowance under the State Act is much more beneficial to the employees than that provided under the Central Act. That order when carried in appeal in W.A. No. 1973/2010. the division bench by order dated 18.11.2010 confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeal. On that premise too, there is no merit in the challenge to the vires of Sec. 3 of the State Act.