ANAMALAIS BUS TRANSPORT PRIVATE Vs. D RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that was debated in this O. P. is whether the Kerala Shops and commercial Establishments Act 1960 (Act 84 of 1960) is inconsistent with, or repugnant to, the Motor Transport Workers Act 1981 (Central Act 27/1981) (hereinafter referred toas the 'kerala Act' and the 'central Act' ). The petitioner is the Manager of the Anamalais Bus Transport Ltd. The 1st respondent was a temporary employee under the petitioner from 7-2-1964 to 10-6-1964. On an appeal preferred by 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent, (the E pellate authority under Section 18 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishment Act 1960), the 2nd respondent found that there had been an illegal termination of the service of the 1st respondent and directed the 1st respondent's reinstatement with a payment of Rs. 250 in lieu of back wages for the period for which he was kept out of employment. On default, the petitioner was directed to pay the 1st respondent a further sum of Rs. 500 in lieu of reinstatement and all other claims, before a specified date. This writ petition is to quash the said order, a certified copy of which, if Ext P-1. Section 18 (1) and (2) of the Kerala Shops and Establishments act 1960 read as follows:-

(2.) ON the above provisions of the two Acts, counsel for the petitioner contended that the same field covered by the Kerala Act namely conditions of work and employment in Shops and Commercial Establishments was also covered by the central Act, with specific reference to the welfare and conditions of service of motor transport workers. It was contended that the Kerala Act being inconsistent with or repugning to, the Central Act, was void under Article 254 (1) of the constitution. It was further contended that the Central Act having dealt specifically with the conditions of Service of motor transport workers would exclude the Kerala act dealing generally with the conditions of service of workers in all shops and commercial establishments. Article 254 (1) of the Constitution reads:

(3.) IT was common ground before me that the legislative power for the two Acts could be traced to entries 28 and 24 of List III of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India. Both the legislatures being competent to enact the respective statutes, the question of repugnance of the one to the other falls to be examined. In Ch. Tika Ramji v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 676, the question of repugnance of the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act 1953 to the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act of 1951, and to the Essential commodities Act of 1955 arose for consideration. At page 698, the Supreme Court observed: