Petitioner challenged an order declining preliminary jurisdiction under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, claiming repeal of the 2009 Amending Act excluded it. Court held repeal does not undo amendments and dismissed the petition.
Writ petition dismissed; direction for adjudication of preliminary issue declined.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8754 of 2022
Petitioner :- M/S Patanjali Sewa Sansthan And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi,Sankalp Narain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ankur Singh Kushwaha,Shobhit Chauhan
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
taking away the amendment to the Act, already made. Doubts, if any, in that regard were resolved by the Supreme Court in Jethanand Betab Vs. State of Delhi, AIR 1960 SC 89, wherein in paragraph no.6, it was observed as under :
"6. The general object of a repealing and amending Act is stated in Halsbury's Laws of England, 2nd Edn., Vol. 31, at p. 563, thus:
“A statute Law Revision Act does not alter the law, but simply strikes out certain enactments which have become unnecessary. It invariably contains elaborate provisos.”
In Khuda Bux v. Manager, Caledonian Press [AIR 1954 Cal 484] Chakravartti, C.J., neatly brings out the purpose and scope of such Acts. The learned Chief Justice says at p. 486:
“Such Acts have no Legislative effect, but are designed for editorial revision, being intended only to excise dead matter from the statute book and to reduce its volume. Mostly, they expurgate amending Acts, because having imparted the amendments to the main Acts, those Acts have served their purpose and have no further reason for their existence. At times, inconsistencies are also removed by repealing and amending Acts. The only object of such Acts, which in England are called Statute Law Revision Acts, is legislative spring-cleaning and they are not intended to make any change in the law. Even so, they are guarded by saving clauses drawn with elaborate care,….”
It is, therefore, clear that the main object of the 1952 Act was only to strike out the unnecessary Acts and excise dead matter from the statute book in order to lighten the burden of ever increasing spate of legislation and to remove confusion from the public mind. The object of the Repealing and Amending Act of 1952 was only to expurgate the amending Act of 1949, along with similar Acts, which had served its purpose."
the petitioners does not merit acceptance. Accordingly, direction prayed for is declined. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is dismissed .
Order Date :- 12.4.2022 S.Chaurasia
Digitally signed by SHUBHAM CHAURASIA Date: 2022.04.12 17:31:08 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether repeal of Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009 retrospectively removes the establishment from the purview of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Whether Section 4 of Repealing and Amending Act, 2016 affects amendments made by the subordinate Amending Act.
Whether the Controlling Authority must adjudicate preliminary issues on jurisdiction at the stage of final hearing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jethanand Betab Vs. State of DelhiExplained¶9
Jethanand Betab Vs. State of Delhi, AIR 1960 SC 89 · Who else cites this
Khuda Bux v. Manager, Caledonian PressExplained¶12
Khuda Bux v. Manager, Caledonian Press [AIR 1954 Cal 484] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
M/S Patanjali Sewa Sansthan And 3 Others
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Saumitra Dayal Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
