Special provision prevails over general mechanism: clause 23 barred dismissal during inquiry and made the application untenable.

A general application mechanism under clause 5(a) could not override clause 23 of the Government Order, which imposed a special restriction during the pendency of an inquiry or appeal by prohibiting discharge or dismissal of workmen without written permission of the specified authority. Applying harmonious construction and the principle that a special provision prevails over a general one, the special safeguard in clause 23 was held to govern the situation where an inquiry was pending. The application under clause 5(a) was therefore not maintainable, and the tribunal's setting aside of the awards was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application under clause 5(a) of the Government Order was maintainable when an inquiry was pending and clause 23 barred discharge or dismissal of workmen without written permission.

Analysis: The Government Order contained a general mechanism under clause 5(a) for moving the Board in respect of industrial disputes, but clause 23 created a special restriction operating during the pendency of an inquiry or appeal, prohibiting discharge or dismissal of workmen without permission of the specified conciliation authority. Reading the provisions together, the Court applied the rule of harmonious construction and the settled principle that a special provision prevails over a general provision. If clause 5(a) were allowed to operate in a case covered by clause 23, the special safeguard in clause 23 would be rendered ineffective and the penal consequences attached to its breach under the Order would be undermined. Since an inquiry was in fact pending when the application was made, the special bar in clause 23 governed the situation.

Conclusion: The application under clause 5(a) was not maintainable during the pendency of the inquiry, and the Labour Appellate Tribunal was right in setting aside the awards.

---