19 has been contravened. Section 25F(b) is in the same terms as s. Whether they exercise these functions or not is thus to be determined by the relevant provisions of the statutes incorporating them and it would be impossible to lay down any universal rule which would help in the' determination of this question. One of the conditions thus prescribed by s. While this was the state of industrial decisions on this point, Ordinance V was promulgated on October 24, 1953. The opinion of the expert does not carry conviction and is not corroborated by circumstances.

This is however not all, and regard must be had to the provisions of the statutes constituting the wage boards. So the argument urged under s. 14A can be said to have been contravened. If that were the only' consideration the dictum of Justice Holmes cited above would apply and the functions performed by these wage boards would be invested with a legislative character. 25F has been introduced in the Act. It is no doubt true that their determinations bind not only the employers and the employees in the present, but they also operate when accepted by the appropriate government or authorities and notified in accordance with law, to bind the future employers and employees in the industry.

The section was intended to meet a case where members of a party acted in furtherance of the common intention of all but it was difficult to prove exactly the part played by each of them. " The expert examined the admitted signatures on document executed in the years 1903 and 1904 while 264 the disputed document was executed in the year 1898. 14A takes us back to the question as to whether the proviso to r. 25E the Ordinance prescribed conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.

It is by this amending Act that s. Even if it was not known which particular person or persons gave the fatal blows, once it was found that the murders were committed in furtherance of the common intention of all, each one of such persons was liable for the murders as though they had been committed by him alone. " It may be noticed that the learned District Judge did not scrutinize the signatures with the help of the expert's evidence, and has not expressed any considered view thereon.

In dealing with this question we cannot ignore the fact that the relevant provisions which fall to be construed in the present appeal impose a serious penalty on the registered dealer, and so, even if the view for which the appellant contends may perhaps be a possible view, we see no reason why the other view for which the first respondent contends and which appears to us to be more reasonable should not be accepted.

If the argument is that the first respondent was not liable to pay any tax and as such was not entitled to make any corresponding collection, then the collection made by him may fall outside s. Section 14A consists of two parts both of which are put in a negative form. There was no difficulty Advocate Supreme Court India - click here - in the application of s 34, Penal Code as the number of convicted persons was four and there was a clear finding that they shared the common intention with some others whose identity was not established.

This Ordinance was followed by Act 43 of 1953, which is deemed to have come into force on October 24, 1953. The farkatnama was found to be genuine in the previous litigation. If on a scrutiny of the provisions in regard thereto one can come to the conclusion that they are appointed only with a view to determine the relations between the employers and the employees in the future in regard to the wages payable to the employees there would be justification for holding that they were performing legislative functions.

The second part with which we are concerned in effect means nothing more than this, that a registered dealer can make collections of such tax only as is payable by him in accordance with the restrictions and conditions as may be 345 prescribed. 14A itself refers to the restrictions and conditions which may be prescribed and, as we have already seen, these conditions and restrictions are prescribed by the Rules in general and by r. 25E(b) was that before a workman is retrenched he must be paid at the time of retrenchment, gratuity which shall be equivalent to 15 days' average pay for every completed year of service or any part thereof in excess of six months.

14A and be otherwise unjustified or improper; but it does not amount to the contravention of any provision of s. If, however, on a consideration of all the relevant provisions of the statutes bringing the wage boards into existence, it appears that the powers and procedure exercised by them are assimilated to those of Industrial Tribunals or their adjudications are subject to judicial review at the hands of higher Tribunals exercising- judicial or quasi-judicial 113 functions, it cannot be predicated that these wage boards are exercising legislative functions.

These are the two opposite points of view which have been pressed before us and it is impossible to state that the functions performed by the wage boards are necessarily of a legislative character. 25E(b) of the Ordinance, except that for the word 'gratuity' the expression "retrenchment compensation " has been substituted, We may incidentally mention the fact that in the statement of aims and objects of the Act it was observed that " in regard to retrenchment the bill provides that a workman who had been in continuous employment for not less than one year under the employer shall not be retrenched until he has been given one month's notice in writing or one, (1) [1950] L.

We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties to the appeal and also carefully scrutinized the evidence on record as well as the judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the Courts below.