Harmonious construction of welfare statutes prevents implied repeal where two labour laws operate in different fields.

Repeal by implication is not inferred unless the later statute is so inconsistent with the earlier law that both cannot operate together, or unless it forms a complete and exhaustive code. The Supreme Court of India held that the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 and the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 operate in different fields and regulate different aspects of the employer-worker relationship, so they are to be read harmoniously. The 1961 Act did not impliedly repeal the 1948 Act; the earlier welfare enactment continues to apply except to the limited extent of any actual overlap where the later special provision prevails.

---

---

Issues: Whether the enactment of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 impliedly repealed or displaced the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 in relation to motor transport workers.

Analysis: There is a strong presumption against repeal by implication. Repeal by implication is inferred only when the later enactment is so inconsistent with the earlier law that both cannot stand together, or when the later law is intended to be a complete and exhaustive code on the subject. The two enactments here operate in different fields and are directed to different aspects of the employer-worker relationship. They do not present any direct conflict, and the absence of some provisions in one statute does not make the other repugnant. Where overlap occurs on a particular aspect, the later special provision applies to that extent, but the earlier welfare enactment is not abrogated as a whole.

Conclusion: The Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 did not impliedly repeal the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948.

Final Conclusion: The two welfare statutes are to be read harmoniously, and the earlier State enactment continues to operate except to the limited extent of any actual overlap with the later Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Repeal by implication is not to be inferred unless the later statute and the earlier statute are so plainly inconsistent that both cannot operate together; where they occupy different fields, they must be harmoniously construed.

---