https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156540 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. en-us Fri, 16 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Feb 2014 14:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156540 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 16 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156540