Supreme Court Dismisses Appellant Employer in Standing Orders Certification Dispute; Subordinate Legislation Not Saved by Repealing Act. Employee Service Regulations Ceased to Operate upon Repeal of Parent Act, Removing Employer's Defense That Regulations Governed Service Conditions.

In Favour of Prosecution
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal by Air India against a judgment of the Delhi High Court which had upheld the certification of Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Air India was established under the Air Corporations Act, 1953, and its employees' terms and conditions were governed by the Air India Employees Service Regulations, 1963, framed under Section 45 of that Act with the consent of the Central Government. In or about 1982, the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, Delhi initiated proceedings for certification of Standing Orders. Air India contended that the Standing Orders Act did not apply to it because its employees were governed by the said Regulations. The contention was rejected, Standing Orders were certified, and Air India's appeal was rejected. Air India then filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, which held that the Standing Orders Act was a special Act and applied to Air India's employees. During the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court, the Air Corporations (Transfer of Undertakings & Repeal) Act, 1994 came into force on 29 January 1994, and by Section 11 thereof, the Air Corporations Act, 1953 was repealed from that day. Ms. Jaisinh, appearing for Air India's employees, raised a contention that the repeal of the parent Act extinguished the Regulations, thereby removing the foundation of Air India's case. The Union of India submitted that Section 8 of the 1994 Act saved the Regulations. The Court examined Section 8 and found that it only protected the remuneration, terms and conditions, and rights and privileges of those who were in Air India's employment when the 1994 Act came into force, and did not cover employees who joined after that date. The Court relied on Watson v. Winch and principles of statutory interpretation to hold that subordinate legislation can survive the repeal of its parent statute only if the repealing statute expressly saves it by mentioning its title. Since Section 8 did not expressly save the Regulations or even mention them, the Court held that the Regulations ceased to be effective on 29 January 1994. Consequently, the foundation of Air India's case no longer existed, and no other arguments were considered. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Headnote

A) Statutory Interpretation - Repeal of Parent Statute - Survival of Subordinate Legislation - Air Corporations (Transfer of Undertakings & Repeal) Act, 1994, Section 8 - The question was whether the Air India Employees Service Regulations, 1963 framed under Section 45 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 survived the repeal of the parent Act by the 1994 Act. The Court held that subordinate legislation survives repeal only if the repealing statute expressly saves it by referring to its title; Section 8 of the 1994 Act only protected existing employees' service conditions and did not save the Regulations. Held that the Regulations ceased to be effective on 29 January 1994 and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Air India Employees Service Regulations, 1963 framed under Section 45 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 survived the repeal of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 by the Air Corporations (Transfer of Undertakings & Repeal) Act, 1994, and whether Section 8 of the 1994 Act saved the said Regulations.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal dismissed with costs. The Supreme Court held that the Air India Employees Service Regulations, 1963 ceased to be effective on 29 January 1994 upon repeal of the Air Corporations Act, 1953. Section 8 of the 1994 Act did not save the Regulations, as it only protected service conditions of existing employees. Consequently, the foundation of Air India's case no longer existed, and no other arguments were considered.

Law Points

  • Subordinate legislation ceases to be effective upon repeal of parent statute unless expressly saved by name in repealing statute
  • Section 8 of Air Corporations (Transfer of Undertakings & Repeal) Act
  • 1994 saves only service conditions of existing employees
  • not the 1963 Regulations
  • No implied saving of subordinate legislation
  • Air India Employees Service Regulations 1963 ceased to be effective on 29 January 1994
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1995 LawText (SC) (07) 50

1995-07-18

Bharucha S.P., Ahmadi A.M.

1996 AIR 666, 1995 SCC (4) 734, JT 1995 (5) 578, 1995 SCALE (4) 523

Ms. Jaisinh

Air India

Union of India and Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition filed by Air India challenging certification of Standing Orders under Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946; appeal to Supreme Court against Delhi High Court's dismissal of writ petition.

Remedy Sought

Air India sought to avert certification of Standing Orders and have the Standing Orders Act declared inapplicable, contending its employees' service conditions were governed by Air India Employees Service Regulations, 1963.

Filing Reason

Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner initiated proceedings for certification of Standing Orders; Air India's objection that the Standing Orders Act did not apply was rejected and Standing Orders certified; subsequent appeal and writ petition failed.

Previous Decisions

Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner rejected Air India's contention and certified Standing Orders; Air India's appeal rejected; Delhi High Court held Standing Orders Act was a special Act and applied to Air India's employees.

Issues

Whether the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 applied to Air India's employees despite the existence of Air India Employees Service Regulations, 1963. Whether the Air India Employees Service Regulations, 1963 survived the repeal of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 by the Air Corporations (Transfer of Undertakings & Repeal) Act, 1994, and whether Section 8 of the 1994 Act saved the Regulations.

Submissions/Arguments

Air India originally contended that its employees' terms and conditions were governed by the 1963 Regulations framed under Section 45 of Air Corporations Act, 1953, and therefore the Standing Orders Act did not apply. Ms. Jaisinh, for Air India's employees, contended that the repeal of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 by the 1994 Act extinguished the Regulations, removing the foundation of Air India's case. Union of India submitted that Section 8 of the 1994 Act saved the Regulations and thus preserved Air India's position.

Ratio Decidendi

Subordinate legislation framed under a repealed statute ceases to be effective unless the repealing statute expressly saves it by referring to its title. Section 8 of the Air Corporations (Transfer of Undertakings & Repeal) Act, 1994 only preserved the terms and conditions of existing employees and did not save the Air India Employees Service Regulations, 1963. Therefore, the Regulations ceased to be effective on 29 January 1994, eliminating the basis for Air India's claim that the Standing Orders Act did not apply.

Judgment Excerpts

if subordinate legislation is to survive the repeal of its parent statute, the repealing statute must say so in so many words and by mentioning the title of the subordinate legislation. Section 8 of the 1994 Act does not in express terms save the said Regulations, nor does it mention them. Holding as we do that the said Regulations ceased to be effective on 29th January, 1994, the very foundation of Air India’s case no longer exists.

Procedural History

1. In or about 1982, Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, Delhi initiated proceedings under Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 for certification of Standing Orders against Air India. 2. Air India contended the Act did not apply; the contention was rejected and Standing Orders were certified. 3. Air India's appeal was rejected. 4. Air India filed a writ petition before Delhi High Court; High Court held Standing Orders Act was a special Act and applied to Air India's employees. 5. Air India appealed to Supreme Court by special leave. 6. During pendency, Air Corporations (Transfer of Undertakings & Repeal) Act, 1994 came into force on 29 January 1994, repealing Air Corporations Act, 1953. 7. Supreme Court considered whether Regulations survived and dismissed appeal with costs.

Acts & Sections

  • Air Corporations Act, 1953: Section 45
  • Air Corporations (Transfer of Undertakings & Repeal) Act, 1994: Section 8, Section 11
  • Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946:
  • Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
  • Companies Act, 1956:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeals Against Section 9 Orders in Arbitration Disputes — Interim Relief Set Aside Due to Lack of Urgency and Failure to Seek Enforcement of Mortgage. Court holds that when a creditor has a mortgage over property, the appr...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Revision Against Maintenance Order Under Section 125 CrPC Despite Prior Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act Order. No Bar to Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Even if Interim Maintenance Was Granted Under Section 24 of Hindu Ma...