Repugnancy under Article 254 turns on conflicting enacted laws, and Presidential assent preserves the State labour law.

The Industrial Disputes Act and the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act operated in the same concurrent field, so repugnancy under Article 254 depended on the existence of conflicting enacted laws, not on the Central Act's commencement date. Because the State amendment had Presidential assent, and no proper challenge to that assent was shown, the State law was treated as valid within Uttar Pradesh. The Court also held that the non obstante clause in Chapter V-A could not be enlarged through Section 25S to override the State enactment on closure, lay-off, and retrenchment. The State Act therefore prevailed in the State.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as amended with Presidential assent, prevailed over the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 under Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India, and whether the date of commencement of the Central Act or the non obstante clause in Chapter V-A displaced the State Act.

Analysis: The Central Act and the State Act operated in the same concurrent field under Entry 22 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. The Court held that repugnancy under Article 254 depends on a law already made, not on the date on which its operation commences. Once both enactments covered the same subject and produced different legal results on closure, lay-off, and retrenchment, Article 254 was attracted. The State amendment had received Presidential assent, and in the absence of a proper challenge to the assent process, the presumption of regularity under Section 114(e) and Section 114(f) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applied. The Court further held that Section 25S of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 did not extend the non obstante clause of Section 25J beyond Chapter V-A so as to override the State enactment.

Conclusion: The State Act prevailed in Uttar Pradesh, the Central Act did not override it on the facts of the case, and the challenge to the High Court's decision failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where two enactments in the concurrent field are repugnant, the later State law prevails within the State if it has received Presidential assent, and the date of commencement of the Central law is irrelevant for Article 254(2); a non obstante clause confined to one chapter cannot be expanded to defeat the constitutional effect of Presidential assent.

---