Save as is otherwise expressly provided in this Act and subject to the provisions of section 93, if in, or in respect of, any factory there is any contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any 1345 rule made thereunder or of any order in writing given thereunder, the occupier and manager of the factory shall each be guilty of an offence and punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both, and if the contravention is continued after conviction, with a further fine which may extend to seventy- five rupees for each day on which the contravention is so continued.
The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha (1957) provide in Rule No. 1322 ‘Now, as to estoppel: in our view, the appellant was’ not misled advocates in Supreme Court of India any way as to his quasi-permanent status a status which he undoubtedly held in the post of Public Relations Officer; the mistake that was made was in thinking that the post of Assistant Station Director was in the same grade as that of Public Relations Officer and then giving effect to the Home office memorandum, referred to previously, on the basis of that mistake.
In this connection, it was also pointed out that the Legislature itself while enacting the impugned Act did not consider these functions as legislative at all. 19 of the Bill which empowered the Central Government to make rules in respect of certain matters specified therein and it was stated that these were purely procedural matters of a routine character and related inter alia to prescribing hours of work, payment of gratuity, holidays, earned leave or other kinds of leave and the procedure to be followed by the Minimum Wager, Board in fixing minimum wages and the manner in which its decisions may be published.
The decision of the Wage Board was not to be laid before both the Houses of Parliament which would have been the case if the fixation of rates of wages was a piece of delegated legislation. Therefore, the grounds, that is to say, those conclusions of facts, must be in existence when the order of detention is made, and those conclusions of facts have to be communicated to the detenu as soon as may be. There is also a committee on subordinate legislation which is established for scrutinizing and reporting to the House; whether the powers to make regulations, rules, sub-rules, by-laws, etc.
Therefore, if there is an infringement of either of the two rights, and any one of the two conditions precedent to a valid detention, as aforesaid, has not been fulfilled, the detenu has a right to approach this Supreme Court of India advocates for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. 20 of the impugned Act but they were the only piece of delegated legislation contemplated by the Legislature and were covered by the memorandum regarding the same which was appended to the Bill.
These clauses were ultimately passed as s. This circumstance also was pointed out as indicative of the intention of the Legislature not to constitute the Wage Board a sub-legislative authority. 13, of 1955 introduced in the Rajya Sabha on September 28, 1955, and the only reference that was made there was to Cl. 136 of the Constitution. Held, further, that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Must be read as subject to the paramount law of the land, namely, the Constitution, and the finality attaching to an award under ss.
The constitution by the Legislature of the Wages Board in the matter of the fixation of rates of wages was not considered as a piece of delegated legislation in the memorandum regarding -delegated legislation appended to the draft Bill No. 17 and 17A of the Act, must, therefore, yield to the overriding powers of this Supreme Court of India advocates under Art. It was only to be published by the Central Government after it/ was communicated to it by the Wage Board in such manner as the Central Government thought fit, a provision which was akin to the publication of award,,; of the Industrial Tribunals by the appropriate Government under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
In other words, the grounds for making an order of detention, which have to be communicated to the detenu as soon as practicable, are conclusions of facts, and are not a complete recital of all the relevant facts. Clause 19 (3) of the Bill further provided that all rules made under this section shall as soon as practicable after they are made, be laid before both Houses of Parliament. 70 for a Bill involving proposals for the delegation of legislative power shall further be accompanied by a memorandum explaining such proposals and drawing attention to their scope and stating also whether they are of normal or exceptional character.
We do not think that any question of estoppel really arises, and in fairness to learned counsel for the appellant it must be stated that he has not founded the case on estoppel. , conferred by the Constitution or delegated by Parliament are being properly exercised within ‘such 149 delegation (vide Rule 317 ibid).