Authority of Bilingual Notifications in Industrial Law

Introduction

The case of Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (III) U.P And Others adjudicated by the Allahabad High Court on September 19, 1961, addresses critical issues concerning the delegation of powers under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act and the validity of bilingual notifications issued in both Hindi and English. The petitioner, Jaswant Sugar Mills Limited, challenged the award made by the Industrial Tribunal regarding the revision of designations and wages of its workmen. Central to the dispute were questions about the proper delegation of authority and the authentication of official notifications, especially in a bilingual context as mandated by the Constitution of India.

Summary of the Judgment

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition filed by Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd., affirming the validity of the Industrial Tribunal's award. The petitioner contended that the Deputy Labour Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to make the reference due to discrepancies in the delegation of powers between the Hindi and English versions of the notification. Additionally, the petitioner argued that the Hindi notification did not constitute a valid delegation under Section 4-k of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act. The Court, however, found that both the Hindi and English versions of the notification were authoritative and properly authenticated under the Constitution, thereby validating the delegation of powers and the Tribunal's subsequent award.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court examined several precedents to establish the authority and validity of bilingual notifications:

• E. Hill and Co. (Private) Ltd. v. Mohammad Ali, 1961 All LJ 506: This case initially suggested that only the English version of a notification is authoritative, disregarding the Hindi version. However, the current case reevaluated and diverged from this stance.
• Haji Lal Mohammad Biri Works v. Sales Tax Officer, AIR 1959 All 208: Supported the notion that both Hindi and English versions are authoritative, especially when used for clarifying ambiguities.
• J. K. Jute Mills Co., Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1961) 12 STC 429: Reinforced the authority of both language versions, aligning with the interpretation in the present case.
• Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. State Industrial Tribunal, U.P., 20 FJR 325: Highlighted that the validity of orders is not solely dependent on explicit authorization but on substantial compliance with procedural norms.
• State Of Bihar v. Rani Sonabati Kumari, AIR 1961 SC 221: Emphasized that notifications authenticated as per Article 166 of the Constitution retain their validity, even if they are issued by authorized officers on behalf of the Governor.
• Emperor v. Shibnath Banerji, AIR 1945 PC 156: Established the presumption that official acts are properly executed, thereby reinforcing the authenticity of official documents.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning hinged on the interpretation of several constitutional provisions, particularly Articles 343 to 348 concerning the official language and the authentication of government actions:

• Article 343: Defines Hindi in Devanagari script as the official language of the Union, with a transition period for English.
• Article 345: Empowers State Legislatures to adopt any language for official purposes, subject to continuation of English for specific uses.
• Article 348: Mandates that authoritative texts of all Bills, Acts, Ordinances, and subordinate legislation are in English, contingent upon translations being published under the Governor's authority.
• Article 166: Dictates the conduct of executive actions at the state level, requiring that orders be authenticated in the Governor's name.

The Court clarified that while Article 348 necessitates English as the authoritative text in cases of divergence, it does not invalidate the original Hindi documents. Both versions hold legal weight, and the English version serves as the authoritative reference to resolve ambiguities. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the authentication of notifications under Article 166 is satisfied if the document is issued "by order of the Governor," even if the signature is that of a Secretary acting on the Governor's behalf.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for administrative and industrial law, particularly in multilingual states like Uttar Pradesh. It underscores the importance of bilingual documentation in governmental processes, ensuring that both the original and translated versions are legally valid. This decision facilitates smoother administrative operations by acknowledging the role of regional languages while maintaining a unified authoritative reference in English. Future cases involving language discrepancies in official documents can rely on this precedent to argue for the validity and mutual authority of multiple language versions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court's judgment in Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Presiding Officer reinforces the constitutional framework supporting multilingual governance in India. By affirming the validity of both Hindi and English versions of official notifications, the Court upheld the balance between regional language autonomy and the necessity for a unified authoritative reference. This decision not only clarified ambiguities surrounding the authentication and authority of bilingual documents but also set a precedent for future administrative and industrial disputes. It underscores the judiciary's role in interpreting constitutional provisions to facilitate effective and inclusive governance.