KISHORBHAI KHEMANCHAND GOYAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Case No. 99 of 1988 came to be filed by Shop Inspector, Jetpur Nagarpalika, Jetpur against the present applicant for breach of the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, 1948 ('the State Act' for short). The breach alleged was that the registration of the firm is not renewed; muster roll is not maintained; earned leave card or register is not maintained; board showing Sunday as weekly holiday is not exhibited; and also precise provisions of the State Act are not exhibited. The applicant-accused pleaded not guilty and the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class after hearing the parties held the accused guilty of the alleged offences and imposed fine of Rs. 25.00 on each count and in default two days simple imprisonment by his judgment and order of 12-3-1992. The applicantaccused being aggrieved by the same preferred an appeal No. 19 of 1992 which was heard and decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal on 12-5-1992 who by his judgment and order confirmed the order of the trial Court. Against the said judgment and order, present revision application is filed.

(2.) Learned Advocate Mr. Gadhia appearing for the applicant contended before this Court that initially the State Act was applicable. However, with effect from 1-3-1963, the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 (the Central Act, for short) has also become applicable to Jetpur Nagarpalika. In view of this fact, he contended that the State Act stands repealed and the Central Act prevails. He, therefore, contended that the conviction under the provisions of the State Act is bad, as the State Act stood repealed in view of the fact of coming into operation of the Central Act. Mr. Gadhia, however, contended that as soon as the Central Act comes into force, for identical provisions the State Act impliedly stands repealed. He, therefore, contended that on coming into operation of the Central Act the State Act stood repealed and the conviction based on the repealed Act is bad in law. He, therefore, contended that the judgments and orders of both the Courts below are illegal and should be set aside.

(3.) Mr. Trivedi, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 Nagarpalika and Mr. D. N. Patel, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State contended that in absence of any specific provision in the Central Act to repeal the State Act, the State Act does not automatically and in particular impliedly stand repealed. They contended that if the provisions of the State Act are inconsistent or in contradiction to the provisions of the Central Act, then, it can be said that the State Act stands impliedly repealed on the principles of interpretation of statutes. They contended that none of the provisions of the State Act are conflicting with the provisions of the Central Act. On the contrary, some of the provisions of the State Act which are more beneficial are not there in the Central Act. They also contended that if the contention of the learned Advocate Mr. Gadhia is accepted then these beneficial provisions provided in the State Act and which are not provided in the Central Act will also go away as the workmen will be deprived of these beneficial legislation at least to that extent. Mr. Gadhia in reply to this contended that there are some provisions in the Central Act which are more beneficial to the workmen than one provided in the State Act. Mr. Gadhia, therefore, contended that the Central Act should prevail over the State Act. Mr. Trivedi and Mr. Patel contended that if both the Acts remain in force they are not serving any conflicting interests of the workmen and workmen may get benefit under both the Acts. In view of this fact, they contended that this Court should not interfere with the orders passed by both the Courts.