JAGDISH VASTRALAYA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these application which have been hard to together a common question of law arises for determination, namely, whether the provisions of Section 26 of Bihar Act 8 of 1954 as amended by Bihar Act 26 of 1959 are constitutionally valid. Section 26 of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act (Bihar Act 8 of 1954) as previously enacted read as follows.-

(2.) On behalf of the petitioners in all these applications learned Counsel submitted the argument that, even after the amendment, Section 26 of Bihar Act 8 of 1954 was constitutionally invalid as there was violation of the guarantee under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. It was pointed out that under Section 26 (3) of the amended Act the employee was given the right to complain in writing in the prescribed manner before a prescribed authority within sixty days of the commencement of the Act, and under Sub-section (6) of Section 26 the decision of the prescribed authority shall be final and will be binding upon both the employer and the employee. Learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioners stressed the argument that the lacuna pointed out by the Division Bench in AIR 1958 Pat 442 still remained and the statute was open to attack for the same constitutional reason. I am unable to accept the argument put forward on behalf of the petitioners as correct. In my opinion. Section 26 (3) of the amended Act must be read along with Rule 21 (i) which was made by the State Govt. under the powers conferred upon it by Section 40 of the Act. Rule 21 (i) states that

(3.) It was also argued on behalf of the petitioners that Section 26 (3) of the Act does not itself mention that the Labour Court is the prescribed authority to whom complaint is to be made by the employee with regard to dismissal or discharge. It was submitted that the section was framed in wide language and power was given to the State Government to prescribe authorities other than the Labour Court for the adjudication of the complaint under that section. I do not think there is any substance in this argument. It is a well established rule of interpretation that the validity of an Act should be tested not merely with regard to the language of any section of the Act but also with regard to the rules made by the State Government under the rule-making power conferred by the Act. This doctrine was adopted by the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. F. N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318 at p. 328 and in a later decision, State of Bombay v. United Motors (India) Ltd., AIR 1953 SC 252 at p. 263. If this doctrine is adopted in the present case, it follows that Section 26 of the amended Act must be read along with the provisions of Rule 21 (1) of the rules made by the State Government by its rule-making power, and, if so construed, it is manifest that there is no violation of the constitutional guarantee under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution by reason of the restriction imposed by that section.