2003 (10) TMI 668 - SC - Indian Laws

Bombay Shops Act 1948 and Motor Transport Workers Act 1961 coexist; no implied repeal, distinct fields, appeal dismissed.

The Guj. HC upheld that the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, remains applicable despite the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961. The appellant's ... Interpretation of the relationship between the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 and the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 - HELD THAT:- On a careful scrutiny of the provisions contained in both the above Acts, we find that the Act makes some specific provisions on certain aspects and areas of relationship between worker and management. It is not only silent but also does not advert to or deal with several other vital and crucial aspects of such relationship as are dealt with by the Establishments Act. The responsibilities and obligations of the management under both Acts cannot be avoided altogether and it is only whether on any particular aspect or stipulation, the prescription is found to overlap - to that extent and in respect of any such matter alone the Act, pertaining to motor transport workers will apply to the exclusion of a contra stipulation in the Establishments Act and consequently, the Establishments Act as a whole cannot be held to have been abrogated by the Act. In substance, if at all, it can only at best be claimed that the operation of the law as contained in the Establishments Act would stand curtailed, if on any particular aspect there is a contra stipulation or provision in the Act in respect of a Motor Transport worker, and not otherwise. This would be the proper, reasonable and inevitable consequence of a harmonious construction of the provisions of the two welfare legislations, so that the best of the both would be available to the worker concerned. Above being the position, the judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. The appeal fails and is dismissed. Issues Involved: Interpretation of the relationship between the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 and the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948.Summary:The Gujarat High Court held that the obligation to comply with the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 (the Establishments Act) remains despite the enactment of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 (the Act). The appellant argued that there was a divergence in views among High Courts, with some holding that the Act impliedly repealed the need to comply with the Establishments Act, while others disagreed.In support of the appeal, it was argued that there must be a clear legislative intent for two statutes to operate on identical issues. The appellant contended that Section 37 of the Act implied a repeal of the Establishments Act, as both statutes fall under the Concurrent List of the Constitution of India.On the contrary, the State argued that the two statutes operate in different fields without any repugnancy. The doctrine of implied repeal was discussed, emphasizing that a repeal by implication is only inferred when provisions of the later Act are inconsistent or repugnant to the earlier Act.The Court analyzed whether there was a direct conflict between the two statutes, whether the Legislature intended to replace the earlier law with an exhaustive code, and whether the laws occupied the same field. It was noted that the Acts operated in different areas with distinct aims and objects, allowing them to coexist.Ultimately, the Court found that there was no direct conflict between the provisions of the two statutes. It was concluded that the Establishments Act was not abrogated by the Act, and a harmonious construction of both laws would ensure the best benefits for workers. The judgment of the High Court was upheld, dismissing the appeal.