Delegated legislative power and condition precedent proof upheld despite missing recital in industrial dispute orders.

Section 3 of the United Provinces Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was upheld because the legislature had itself laid down the policy, the governing standard, and the limits of delegated action, leaving only implementation details to the executive. The provision was therefore not struck down for excessive delegation. Government Orders Nos. 615 and 671 dated 15 March 1951 were also upheld because the required statutory satisfaction had in fact been reached before issuance; although an express recital was desirable, its absence did not invalidate the orders where compliance with the condition precedent was otherwise proved.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 3 of the United Provinces Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 amounted to excessive delegation of essential legislative function. (ii) Whether Government Orders Nos. 615 and 671 dated 15 March 1951 were invalid for want of an express recital that the statutory conditions precedent had been satisfied.

Issue (i): Whether section 3 of the United Provinces Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 amounted to excessive delegation of essential legislative function.

Analysis: Section 3 laid down the governing policy, the circumstances in which the State Government could act, the mode of action by general or special order, and the general subject-matters on which orders could be made. The legislature had thus determined the policy and the standard, leaving only the working out of details to the Government within prescribed limits. The provision did not leave the essential legislative function of choosing policy and formulating it into a binding rule of conduct to the executive.

Conclusion: Section 3 was not unconstitutional on the ground of excessive delegation and was valid.

Issue (ii): Whether Government Orders Nos. 615 and 671 dated 15 March 1951 were invalid for want of an express recital that the statutory conditions precedent had been satisfied.

Analysis: The statutory satisfaction required for issuing the orders had in fact been reached before they were made, as shown by the affidavit filed before the Court. Although recital of the satisfaction in the order itself was desirable, the absence of such recital did not by itself render the orders void ab initio where the existence of the condition precedent could be proved otherwise. The defect was therefore capable of being cured by proof aliunde. The orders under challenge were issued after the required satisfaction had been formed.

Conclusion: The two Government orders of 15 March 1951 were valid.

Final Conclusion: The statutory provision and the consequential Government orders were upheld, and the appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the legislature has laid down the policy, standard, and limits of delegated action, the delegation is valid; and where a statute requires a condition precedent for the exercise of delegated power, absence of an express recital in the order does not invalidate it if compliance is otherwise satisfactorily proved.

---