ORDER
1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) challenging the jurisdiction of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Muzaffarpur, to entertain an application under Section 26 (2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 (Bihar Act 8 of 1954) by opposite party No. 1 against the order of the Divisional Manager of the Corporation dated 173-1964 discharging him from service. Opposite party No. 1 had been working under the Corporation as a conductor and was discharged by the Divisional Manager for an alleged act of misconduct. When he challenged the order of discharge before the Labour Court under Section 26(2) of Bihar Act 8 of 1954, the petitioner raised a preliminary objection on the ground that Bihar Act 8 of 1954 was not applicable to the workmen of the Corporation who were governed by the provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 (No. 27 of 1961). This objection was overruled by the Labour Court.
2. Bihar Act 8 of 1954 came into force with effect from 17th March, 1954 and as indicated in its preamble it was intended “to provide for the regulation of conditions of work and employment in shops and others establishments and for certain other purposes” The expression “establishment” was defined in Clause (6) of Section 2 of that Act, and similarly “shop” was also defined in Clause (16) of that Section Chapter II dealt with establishments and contained detailed provisions for the opening and closing hours prescribing the daily and weekly hours of work intervals for rest, weekly holidays and other allied matters. Chapter III regulated the employment of children and young persons in such establishments Chapter IV dealt with leave with wages Chapter V contained provisions regarding payment of wages fixation of wage period, extra pav for over-time, time of payment of wages and deductions from wages (Sections 19 to 25).
Section 26(1) took away the contractual power of an employer to dismiss his employee at his will and required that no employee who has been in employment for more than six months shall be discharged or dismissed except for a reasonable cause and after giving notice. Sub-section (2) of that section conferred power on an employee aggrieved by an order of discharge to move the prescribed authority (here the Labour Court) against the order of discharge. The other sub-section of that section dealt with the procedure to be followed by the prescribed authority in hearing the petition from the discharged employee and passing orders on the same. Section 28 conferred power on an employee whose wages have been either unduly delayed or unauthorisedly withheld and who is entitled to any sum from his employer to move the prescribed authority for redress of his grievances, and the remaining sub-sections of that section contained provisions for the mode of disposal of such petition by the prescribed authority who could grant relief to the aggrieved employee on specified grounds. Chapter VI dealt with inspection and penalties, and Chapter VII contained miscellaneous provisions including rule making power. It will thus be seen that Bihar Act 8 of 1954 was mainly intended to protect employees of shops and establishments who prior to the passing of the Act were practically at the mercy of their employers. Summary powers for redress of their grievances, specially against arbitrary discharge or arbitrary deduction from their wages, were provided in Sections 26 and 28. With a view to remove any ambiguity, it was stated in Section 39 of that Act that the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, would apply mutatis mutandis to the employees of establishments under the Act, and similarly Section 39-A applied the provisions of the Bihar Maternity Benefit Act, 1947 Mutatis mutandis to those employees.
3. The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation is a corporate body established in pursuance of the statutory powers conferred by the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (No. 64 of 1950), an Act which was primarily intended to facilitate establishment of Road Transport Corporations mainly with a view to co-ordinate various forms of road transport and facilities to persons using road transport by providing an efficient and economical system of road transport service. The powers conferred on the Corporation are enumerated in Section 19 of that Act. Clause (e) of Sub-section (2) of that section and Clause (iii) of Sub-section (3) of that section authorise the Corporation to sell certain classes of goods. It may be taken as practically unchallenged that the Corporation would come within the meaning of the expressions “establishment” and “shop” as defined in Bihar Act 8 of 1954 and consequently a large percentage of the workers of the Corporation would be “employees” for the purposes of Bihar Act 8 of 1954 and would be entitled to the benefits provided in that Act.
4. In 1961, however, the Parliament passed the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 (27 of 1961) which came into force on the 20th May, 1961. The preamble to this Act is as follows :– “An Act to provide for the welfare of motor transport workers and to regulate the conditions of their work”. It will be noticed that the preamble of this Act is very similar to the preamble of Bihar Act 8 of 1954. Both the Acts were primarily meant to provide for the welfare of certain classes of employees and to regulate their conditions of service. The Bihar Act, however, was of a general nature applicable to employees of shops and establishments whereas the Motor Transport Workers Act was of a special nature dealing with the provisions of welfare and conditions of work of motor transport workers only. The expression “motor transport worker” was defined as follows in Clause (h) of Section 2 of that Act: ‘”motor transport worker’ means a person who is employed in a motor transport undertaking directly or through an agency, whether for wages or not, to work in a professional capacity on a transport vehicle or to attend to duties in connection with the arrival, departure, loading or unloading of such transport vehicle and includes a driver, conductor, cleaner, station staff, line checking staff, booking clerk, cash clerk, depot clerk, time-keeper, watchman or attendant, but except in Section 8 does not include– (i) any such person who is employed in a factory as defined in the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948); (ii) any such person to whom the provisions of any law for the time being in force regulating the conditions of service of persons employed in shops or commercial establishment apply”.
This definition contains the well known expressions “means”, “includes” and “does not include”. The driver, conductor, cleaner and other persons have been expressly included within the scope of the definition, but the definition clause specially says in Sub-section (ii) that “any such person to whom the provisions of any law for the time being in force regulating the conditions of service of persons employed in shops or commercial establishments” shall not be included within the scope of the definition. The intention is thus very clear. Persons to whom Bihar Act 8 of 1954 would apply are excluded from the operation of the Motor Transport Workers Act. The Parliament was conscious when it passed this Act in 1961 of the existence of Shops and Establishments Act in the various States and intended by Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (h) of Section 2 of the Act that motor transport workers should be solely governed by the provisions of that Act and not by the provisions of the Shops and Establishments Act. The use of the words “include” or ”does not include” in the definition of the words of a statute is made generally for the purpose if indicating something with respect to the inclusion or exclusion of which there might otherwise be doubt.
The Parliament therefore, with a view to remove all doubt made it clear in the special definition clause that driver, conductor, cleaner and other persons enumerated in that clause would come within the scope of the definition and that persons to whom the provisions of the Shops and Establishments Act apply will be outside the scope of the definition Here, it cannot be denied that opposite party No. 1 being a conductor of the vehicles of the Corporation would come within the scope of the definition and consequently on a matter of mere construction of the definition itself, it can be said that those motor transport workers who come within the definition as given in Clause (h) of Section 2 of that Act are not entitled to the benefits conferred by Bihar Act, 8 of 1954.
5. The same conclusion emerges on general principles of statutory construction. It is well known that a later special Act will impliedly repeal the earlier general Act in respect of matter dealt with in the special Act. There may be some controversy as to how far a later general Act may impliedly repeal the earlier special Act on the principle generalia specialious non derogant, but there can be no doubt that a later special Act will impliedly repeal an earlier general Act in respect of matters expressly provided therein (See Maxwell, 11th edition. Chapter VII, on Interpretation of Statutes and Craies on Statute Law, 6th edition, page 365). That the two Acts are inconsistent with each other is obvious Chapter V of the Motor Transport Workers Act deals with hours and limitation of employment. Special rules have to be made regarding the hours of work, daily interval, weekly rest etc, for motor transport workers because of the very nature of their work. Thus, the proviso to Section 13 permit the employer to require a motor transport worker to work for more than eight hours a day on a particular day if he is engaged in the running of any transport service on long distance routes. The second proviso to that section deals with an emergency which may arise when there Is a break down or dislocation of the transport service. Such special provisions are not found in Bihar Act 8 of 1954. Similarly, as regards daily interval for rest Section 15 of the Motor Transport Workers Act is not identical with Section 10 of Bihar Act 8 of 1954 The spread-over dealt with in Section 16 of the Motor Transport Workers Act is different from the spread over provided in Section 11 of the Bihar Act 8 of 1954. The provisions dealing with employment of children and young men (Chapter VI of the Motor Transport Workers Act and Chapter III of the Bihar Act) are not identical. Similarly, the provisions about wages and leave (Chapter VII of the Motor Transport Workers Act and Chapters IV and V of the Bihar Act) are also not identical. It is true that on many maters the provisions are very similar, but from the very nature of the work of the motor transport workers there is bound to be some difference for which special provisions have been made in the Motor Transport Workers Act. The Motor Transport Workers Act being thus a special Act meant to regulate the conditions of service of a special class of workers must, as a matter of construction, be held to impliedly repeal Bihar Act 8 of 1954 in so far as motor transport workers are concerned.
6. The same result is achieved on constitutional grounds also. The Motor Transport Workers Act is an act of Parliament which has been passed in exercise of the powers conferred by Entries 24 and 35 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Bihar Act 8 of 1954 also deals with a matter in the Concurrent List and was assented to by the President. By virtue Clause (I) of Article 254 of the Constitution a later law made by the Parliament in respect of a matter in the concurrent list must to the extent of the repugnancy prevail over an earlier law made by the Legislature of the State Repugnancy between the two laws may arise in various ways, such as when there is express inconsistency in the actual terms of the two laws, or else when one of the laws is intended to be “a complete statement of the law governing a particular matter or a set of rights or duties” Here, from the foregoing review oi the provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act it is very clear that the Parliament intended that Act to be a complete statement of the law dealing with the welfare of motor transport workers and their conditions of work, and when the Parliament made that law being fully aware of the existence of the Shops and Establishments Act in the various States, the reasonable view is that the Parliament intended to impliedly supersede Bihar Act 8 of 1954 so far as motor transport workers are concerned.
7. It was then contended that in the Motor Transport Workers Act there is no special provision for summary relief to an aggrieved worker who is arbitrarily discharged from service by the employer or whose wages or other emoluments are unreasonably withheld or delayed by his employer whereas such summary relief is given in Sub-section (2) of Section 26 and Section 28 of Bihar Act 8 of 1954.It was urged that if the Bihar Act is held to be impliedly repealed the motor transport workers will be at a great disadvantage compared to other employees and that the only remedy would be either by way of a civil suit or by wav of taking the aid of the Industrial Disputes Act in so far as it may be applicable.
It is true that there is no provision in the Motor Transport Workers Act for granting summary relief to transport workers who may be aggrieved in the manner indicated above. But it should be remembered that the Corporation itself is a statutory body working under the provisions of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. It is ordinarily expected not to act capriciously in its dealings with its employees and in fact Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of that Act casts on the Corporation a duty “to provide for its employees suitable conditions of service including fair wages, establishment of provident fund, living accommodation, places for rest and recreation and other amenities”. The State Government also is conferred power under Section 34(1) to issue directions to the Corporation as regards conditions of service of its employees, wages to be paid to them and other allied matters. The Corporation also is conferred power by Section 45 to make regulations and Clause fc) of Sub-section (2) of that section says that the regulations may deal with the conditions of appointment and service and the scales of pay of officers and servants of the Corporation. Though there may be some doubt as to whether discharge or removal from service is “a condition of service” it will undoubtedly come within the scope of the expression “conditions of appointment.” Thus, there are adequate provisions in the Act constituting the Corporation to prevent arbitrary dismissal or removal from service of its employees and hence resort to Section 26(2) of Bihar Act VIII of 1954 is not always necessary. Then again, if wages are unreasonably withheld, the motor transport workers also may take advantage of the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act so far as they may be applicable. Resort to section 28 of Bihar Act VIII of 1954 is also not necessary for the purpose. Hence if the Parliament in its wisdom did not think it necessary to make express provision in the Motor Transport Workers Act. 1961, for summary relief in the manner given to other employees under Section 26(2) and Section 28 of Bihar Act VIII of 1954, it cannot be said as a matter of construction that those two sections would continue to apply to motor transport workers also even though the other provisions of the Bihar Act must be held to have been impliedly repealed by the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961. It seems fairly clear that by passing the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 and the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 and giving authority to make rules and regulations dealing with the appointment and conditions of service of the servants of the Corporation, the Parliament intended that this group of workers should be dealt with on a separate footing and that a complete and self-contained law dealing with the appointment and conditions of service should be provided. To that extent a general law like the Shops and Establishments Act must be held to be impliedly superseded.
8. For these reasons, this petition is allowed and the proceedings before the Labour Court Muzaffarpur, in case No. 4 of 1964 are quashed on the ground that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition of opposite party No. 1 under Section 26(2) of Bihar Act VIII of 1954. There will be no order for costs.