NO BEEDI FACTORY 26 SCHOOL STREET MELAPALAYAM TIRUNELVELI 627 005 Vs. SECRETARY MAVATTA BEEDI THOZHILALAR ITU SANGAM 180G MAIN ROAD ALANGULAM TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the writ petition runs in the following terms:

(2.) Section 31 of the Central Act 32 of 1966 reads as follows:

(3.) In my view, it is not necessary to delve on the larger issue as to whether the provisions of the Central Act 14 of 194 7 stand totally excluded by virtue of the provisions of the Central Act 32 of 1966, though some submissions were made by both the sides from this angle. When we look into section 39(1) of the Central Act 32 of 1966, we find that it does say that the Central Act 14 of 1947 shall apply to matters arising in respect of every industrial premises. But in the very same Act, namely, the Central Act 32 of 1966 there is a specific provision found in Section 31 as per the extract made above which has provided for and dealt with contingencies arising out of non - employment of an employee. Equally so, with reference to enumerated disputes Section 39(2) of the Central Act 32 of 1966 has provided a specified remedy. When the Central Act 32 of 1966 was enacted, it is obvious that the Parliament did have before it the Central Act 14 of 1947 and it must be deemed to have taken note of all the contingencies that are likely to arise in the working out of the provisions of both the enactments. If on the question of non - employment of an employee under the Central Act 32 of 1966 the provisions of the Central Act 14 of 194 7 were intended to govern, the incorporation of section 31 in the Central Act 32 of 1966 would be a redundancy. Certainly, this could not have been the intendent of the Central legislation. If we look into the scheme of the provisions and in particular sections 31 and 39 of the Central Act 32 of 1966, we find that there could be a confortable reconciliation between the two provisions which would not bring them into conflict with one another. Section 31 of the Central Act 32 of 1966 must be held to be a special provision intended to govern disputes arising in respect of every non - employment of an employee under that Act. Section 39(1) of the 'Central Act 32 of 1966 does have a place, but it will not be operative when dispute arises in respect of every non - employment, regarding which, as noted above, the special provision found in section 31 of the Central Act 32 of 1966 must govern. Equally so, section 39(2) of the Central Act 32 of 1966 has provided for a machinery to settle disputes with regard to enumerated matters set out therein. The maxim greneralia specialibus non - derogant is quite well known.