KISHOREBHAI KHAMANCHAND GOYAL versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

KISHOREBHAI KHAMANCHAND GOYAL versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

There is presumption against repeal by implication. The areas of operation of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 and the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 are different, with wholly different aims and objects. They operate in their respective fields with no direct conflict, thus coexistence is possible. Only in case of overlap on specific matters will the Central Act apply to the exclusion of the State Act. The State Act is not abrogated by the Central Act as a whole.

Parties
Appellant: Kishorebhai Khamanchand Goyal; Respondents: State of Gujarat and Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
30 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Implied Repeal, Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius, Concurrent List
Labour Law Statutory Interpretation Implied Repeal Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius Concurrent List

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kishorebhai Khamanchand Goyal

Appellant

State of Gujarat and Anr.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 impliedly repeals the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 with respect to motor transport operators.
  2. 2 Whether there is repugnancy or conflict between the provisions of the two Acts.

Ratio Decidendi

There is presumption against repeal by implication. The areas of operation of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 and the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 are different, with wholly different aims and objects. They operate in their respective fields with no direct conflict, thus coexistence is possible. Only in case of overlap on specific matters will the Central Act apply to the exclusion of the State Act. The State Act is not abrogated by the Central Act as a whole.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment of the Gujarat High Court affirmed
  • No interference warranted