Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from industrial conflicts between certain industrial concerns, including The Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Limited, and their workmen, leading to references of disputes to industrial tribunals purportedly constituted under general orders dated March 15, 1951 issued under Section 3 of the United Provinces Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The State of U.P. had issued two general orders under clauses (c), (d) and (g) of Section 3, which empowered the government to appoint industrial courts, refer disputes for conciliation or adjudication, and make incidental or supplementary provisions. The appellants, after failing before the Labour Appellate Tribunal, filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Allahabad High Court challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 and the validity of the general orders. The High Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 3 but found the general orders invalid for not reciting the condition precedent; however, it held that the orders of reference in the individual cases were special orders under Section 3 and therefore valid, and dismissed the petitions. The appellants obtained certificates for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered whether Section 3 delegated essential legislative functions to the government in violation of constitutional principles, and whether the general orders were invalid solely because they did not recite the government's opinion about the necessity or expediency of making the orders. The appellants argued that Section 3 did not lay down sufficient policy or standards, as it left the powers, qualifications, and sittings of industrial courts unspecified, relying on In re The Delhi Laws Act and Queen v. Burah. The State contended that the section laid down the conditions, types of orders, and permissible contents, and that the general orders were valid because the State had filed an affidavit showing that the requisite opinion was formed before making the orders. The Court held that the legislature had performed its essential legislative function by specifying the conditions under which the government could act, the nature of orders, and what the orders were to contain; the delegation to make subordinate rules within those limits was permissible. The Court distinguished the American cases relied upon by the appellants, such as Wichita Railroad, Mahler, and Panama Refining, and applied Indian precedents including The State of Bombay v. Purushottam Jog Naik, Biswabhusan Naik v. State of Orissa, and The State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji to hold that recital of the condition precedent is not mandatory unless the statute requires it. The absence of recital does not make the order void ab initio; the authority can prove fulfilment of the condition by other evidence, such as an affidavit. The Court therefore upheld the constitutionality of Section 3 and the validity of the general orders, and dismissed the appeals.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Delegated Legislation - Essential Legislative Function - United Provinces Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 3(c), 3(d), 3(g) - The legislature prescribed the conditions under which the State Government could act, the types of orders it could make, and the permissible contents of those orders, thereby laying down the legislative policy and standard. The power to appoint industrial courts, refer disputes, and make incidental provisions was merely subordinate rule-making within prescribed limits and did not constitute delegation of essential legislative functions. Held that Section 3 was constitutional.
B) Administrative Law - Condition Precedent and Recital - Validity of Subordinate Legislation - United Provinces Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 3 - The general orders dated March 15, 1951 did not recite that the State Government had formed the requisite opinion as to necessity or expediency. The Court held that such a recital was not mandatory unless the statute required it; the absence of recital did not make the orders void ab initio, and the State could prove satisfaction of the condition by filing an affidavit. Held that the general orders were valid.
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 3 of the United Provinces Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was unconstitutional due to excessive delegation of essential legislative functions under clauses (c), (d) and (g); whether the general orders dated March 15, 1951 were invalid because they did not recite the satisfaction of the condition precedent; and whether the absence of such recital could be cured by an affidavit filed by the State.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that Section 3 of the United Provinces Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was constitutional and did not involve excessive delegation of legislative power. It further held that the general orders dated March 15, 1951 were valid despite the absence of a recital of the condition precedent, as the State's affidavit established that the requisite opinion had been formed. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the High Court's dismissal of the writ petitions but on different reasoning regarding the validity of the general orders.
Law Points
- Delegated legislation does not involve transfer of essential legislative function if legislature lays down policy and standard
- condition precedent for subordinate legislation need not be recited in the order itself
- absence of recital does not render order void ab initio
- can be proved by affidavit
- legislature can delegate power to appoint industrial courts
- refer disputes
- and make incidental provisions under Section 3 of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- presumption of regularity arises if recital is present
- burden shifts to challenger
Case Details
1961 LawText (SC) (03) 45
Civil Appeal No. 327 of 1958 with Civil Appeal Nos. 363 to 369 of 1958
Wanchoo, K.N., Gajendragadkar, P.B., Sarkar, A.K., Gupta, K.C. Das, Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala
1961 AIR 1381, 1962 SCR (1) 422
G.S. Pathak, S.P. Varma, C.B. Agarwala, G.C. Mathur, C.P. Lal, H.N. Sanyal, H.S. Brar, S.N. Andley, J.B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath, P.L. Vohra, Bhawani Lal, Dharam Bhusan, J.P. Goyal, S.C. Das
The Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Limited and Others
The State of U.P. and Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Constitutional challenge to Section 3 of the United Provinces Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the validity of two general orders dated March 15, 1951 appointing industrial tribunals; appeals against dismissal of writ petitions by the Allahabad High Court.
Remedy Sought
Appellants (industrial concerns) sought to quash the awards and orders of reference, declare Section 3 unconstitutional and the general orders invalid, through writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, and subsequent appeals to the Supreme Court.
Filing Reason
Industrial disputes between appellants and their workmen were referred for adjudication to industrial tribunals allegedly set up under the general orders of March 15, 1951; awards were passed against the appellants, who then challenged the constitutionality of the enabling provision and the validity of the orders.
Previous Decisions
The Allahabad High Court held Section 3 constitutional but held the two general orders invalid; however, it ruled that the orders of reference in the individual cases were special orders under Section 3 and therefore valid, dismissing the writ petitions. The Labour Appellate Tribunal had earlier dismissed the appellants' appeals against the awards.
Issues
Whether Section 3 of the United Provinces Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, insofar as clauses (c), (d) and (g) are concerned, unconstitutionally delegates essential legislative functions to the State Government.
Whether the general orders dated March 15, 1951 were invalid because they did not recite the satisfaction of the condition precedent (the government's opinion as to necessity or expediency) in the orders themselves.
Whether the absence of such recital rendered the orders void ab initio or could be cured by an affidavit filed by the State showing that the condition precedent was fulfilled.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants contended that Section 3 delegated essential legislative functions because it did not indicate the powers of industrial courts, qualifications of persons constituting such courts, or places of sitting, relying on In re The Delhi Laws Act and Queen v. Burah.
Appellants argued that the general orders were invalid because the condition precedent for their formulation (the government's opinion about necessity or expediency) was not recited in the orders themselves.
Respondent State filed an affidavit stating that the government had formed the requisite opinion before making the general orders, and argued that Section 3 was valid as it laid down the policy and standard, and that absence of recital did not invalidate the orders.
Ratio Decidendi
The legislature in enacting Section 3 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 laid down the legislative policy and standard by specifying the conditions for exercise of power, the nature of orders, and their permissible contents. That delegation to the State Government to appoint industrial courts, refer disputes, and make incidental provisions was not delegation of essential legislative functions. A condition precedent for making a subordinate legislative or executive order need not be recited in the order itself unless the statute requires it; absence of recital does not make the order void ab initio, and the authority may prove fulfilment of the condition by affidavit or other evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
If, in the opinion of the State Government it is necessary or expedient so to do for securing the public safety or convenience, or the maintenance of public order or supplies and services essential to the life of the community, or for maintaining employment, it may, by general or special order, make provision- (c) for appointing industrial courts; (d) for referring any industrial dispute for conciliation or adjudication in the manner provided in the order; (g) for any incidental or supplementary matters which appear to the State Government necessary or expedient for the purpose of the order.
Thus the legislature has indicated its policy and has made it a binding rule of conduct. It has also indicated when the Government shall act under s. 3 and how it shall act. It has further indicated what it shall do when it acts under s. 3.
Where a condition precedent has to be satisfied before a subordinate authority can pass an order, (executive or in the nature of subordinate legislation), it is not necessary that the satisfaction of the condition should be recited in the order itself, unless the statute requires it. But it is desirable that it should be so mentioned for then the presumption that the condition was satisfied would immediately arise and the burden would be on the persons challenging the order to show that the recital is not correct. Even when the recital is not made in the order, it will not become void abinitio and only a further burden is cast on the authority passing the order to satisfy the court by other means, e.g., by filing an affidavit, that the condition precedent was satisfied.
Procedural History
Industrial disputes between the appellants and their workmen were referred to industrial tribunals purportedly set up under the general orders of March 15, 1951 issued under Section 3 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Awards were passed against the appellants, who appealed to the Labour Appellate Tribunal and failed. The appellants then filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Allahabad High Court challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 and the validity of the general orders. The High Court held Section 3 constitutional but declared the general orders invalid; however, it upheld the individual orders of reference as special orders under Section 3 and dismissed the petitions. The appellants obtained certificates for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, and the appeals were heard together.
Acts & Sections
- United Provinces Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 3(c), 3(d), 3(g)
- Constitution of India: Article 226
