JUDGMENT <NAME>, J.

1. The petitioner Messrs. Jaswant Sugar Mills Limited (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) is a limited liability company and carried on business of manufacture and sale of sugar. On 1st October, 1958, the Deputy Labour Commissioner (Industrial Relations), U. P., referred the following matter of dispute to <ORG>, U. P., Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the <ORG>) for adjudication :

"Whether the designation and/or wages of the workmen appearing in the annexure need any revision? If so, from what date and with what details?"

The <ORG> made its award on 30th April, 1959, and the same was published in <ORG> on 3rd June, 1959. By means of this petition the award mentioned above has been challenged by the petitioner.

2. Under the provisions of Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the power to make a reference has been given to the State Government. That power can, however, be delegated under Section 11-A of the Act. Notification No, 2723 (ST)/XXXVI-A-150 (ST)-57 dated 20th May, 1957, was published both In Hindi as also in English, in an extraordinary issue of <ORG>. By means of this Notification the State Government delegated some powers under the Act to the Labour Commissioner find the Deputy Labour Commissioner, U. P. Whereas, in thc English version of the Notification the sections in respect of which powers had been delegated were 4-K and 6-H, the Hindi version mentioned the sections as 4- k and 6 >- 4&k would correspond to 4-J in English. After the present petition had been filed in this Court, the State Government issued in an Extraordinary Issue of <ORG> dated 29th August, 1959, a corrigendum stating that instead of 4&k and 6 >] 4 V and 6&k be read in the Hindi Notification dated 20th May, 1957.

3. It would contribute to a clear understanding of thc case if at this stage a few facts were mentioned. <ORG> passed two Acts being U. P. Act No. 1 of 1950 (U. P. Language Bills Act) and U. P. Act No. 26 of 1951 (U. P. Official Language Act). By the former it was provided that the proceedings in <ORG> shall be in Hindi and the U. P. Act s shall also be in the same language. By the latter it was provided that for all official purposes in <ORG> shall be used.

4. In the English version of the Notification dated 20th May, 1957, the words "By Order, <NAME>, Secretary" appear. In the Hindi version the corresponding words used are "Agya Se, Ambadat Pande, <NAME>." This case originally came up before me when two submissions were made on behalf of the petitioner. They were as follows :

(1) The Deputy Labour' Commissioner had no jurisdiction to make the reference because the English version of the Notification, alone to the exclusion of the Hindi one could be looked into under the law, but inasmuch as the English version had not been properly authenticated and had not been published under the authority of the Governor that too could not be looked into.

(2) That the Hindi Notification cannot support the case for delegation as there is in fact no delegation of power under Section 4-K of the Act in, that Notification.

5. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of <ORG> v. <NAME>, 1961 All LJ 506, had in effect decided that the Hindi version of a Notification cannot be looked into at all and only its translation in. English would be deemed to be the authoritative text provided on the face of it it appears to have been issued under the authority of the Governor, <ORG> was placed on this case before me. As I considered that the case required reconsideration I referred the matter to a larger Bench and now the case has come up before us in the Full Bench.

6. Mr. <NAME>, who has appeared, for the petitioner, has confined himself to the two submissions that were made before me while sitting singly without adding any other. I shall consider the two submissions seriatim.

7. The provisions relating to the question of official language occur in Part XVII of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution). In Ch. I of that part there are two Articles, i.e., 343 and 344. Article 343 of the Constitution provides in substance that the official language of the <ORG> shall be Hindi in the Devanagari script, but for a period of 15 years from the commencement of the Constitution the English language shall be continued to be in use for all official purposes of the <ORG> for which it was to be used immediately before such commencement. Article 344 is not material for our purposes. In Ch. II of this part there are three Articles. Article 345 reads as follows :

"Subject to the provisions of Articles 349 and 347, <ORG> may by Jaw adopt any one or more of the languages in use in the State or Hindi as the language or languages to be used, for all or any of the official purposes of that State:

Provided that, until <ORG> otherwise provides by law, the English language shall continue to be used for those official purposes within the State for which it was being used immediately before the commencement of this Constitution.'' Article 346 is to the effect that for inter-State communication the official language in use for <ORG> purposes shall be used provided that if two or more States agree, that the Hindi language should be the official language for communication between such States, that language may be used for such communication. Article 347 provides that the President may, if he is satisfied that a substantial proportion of the population of a State desires the use of any language spoken by them to be recognized by that State, direct that such language shall also be officially recognized throughout that State or any part thereof for such purpose as he may specify. Chapter III, which is headed as 'Language of the Supreme Court, <ORG>.' contains two Articles, i.e., 348 and 349. Article 348 reads as follows:

"(1) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this part, until <ORG> by law otherwise provides:

(a) all proceedings in <ORG> and in every High Court,

(b) the authoritative texts-

(i) of all Bills to be introduced or amendments thereto to be moved in either <ORG> or in the <ORG> or either <ORG> of the Legislature of a State,

(ii) of all Acts passed by <ORG> or the Legislature of a State and of all Ordinances promulgated by the President or the Governor or Rajpramukh of a State, and

(iii) of all Orders, rules, regulations and bye-laws issued under this Constitution or under any law made by <ORG> or <ORG> State, shall be in the English language.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in Sub-clause (a) of Clause (1), the Governor or Rajpramukh of a <ORG> may, with the previous consent of the President, authorise the use of the Hindi language, or any other language used for any official purposes of the <ORG>, in proceedings in <ORG> having its principal seat in that <ORG> :

Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to any judgment, decree or order passed or made by such High Court, (3) Notwithstanding anything in Sub-clause (b) of Clause (1), where the Legislature of a State has prescribed any language other than the English language for use in Bills introduced in, or Acts passed by, the <ORG> or in Ordinances promulgated by the Governor or Rajprarmikh of the State or in any order, rule, regulation or bye-law deferred to in para (iii) of that sub-clause, a translation of the same in the English language published under the authority of the Governor or Rajpramukh of the State in the Official Gazette of that State shall be deemed to be the authoritative text thereof in the English language under this article"

We are not concerned with Article 349 in this case nor are we concerned with the provisions of Articles 350, 350A, 350B and 351 which occur in Ch. IV of Part XVII of the Constitution. The petitioner's case is that the provisions of Article 348 are mandatory and paras (ii) and (iii) of Clause (1) (b) of that Article requires that the authoritative text of all Acts passed by the <ORG> or the <ORG> of a State and of all Ordinances promulgated by the President or the Governor of a State and of all orders, rules, regulations and bye-laws issued under the Constitution or under any law made by the <ORG> of a State shall be in English language.

8. It is contended that the effect of Articles 348 and 345 read together is, that whereas it was open to <ORG> to prescribe Hindi as the language in which Bills' or Acts were to be passed by the <ORG> or Ordinances promulgated by the Governor or orders, rules, regulations or bye-laws framed, a translation, of these in English had got to be made under the authority of the Governor and published in <ORG> and that it was only such translation in English which was the authoritative text of the Bill, Act, Ordinance, Order, Rule, Regulation or Bye-law as the case may be. In support of this submission learned counsel placed reliance upon the case of 1961 All LJ 506. The argument was that the Hindi Notification dated 20th May, 1957, had no legal existence and the English one not showing on the face of it that it had been published under the authority of the Governor had also no legal validity.

In my judgment the submissions of Sri <NAME>, are based upon a misconception of the provisions of Articles 345 and 348 of the Constitution. It is true that para (iii) of Clause (1) (b) of Article 348 provides that all orders, rules, regulations and bye-laws issued under the Constitution of under any law made by the <ORG> or the <ORG> of a State shall be in the English language. But these provisions are subject to what is contained in Clause (3) of this Article. That clause opens with the words "Notwithstanding anything in Sub-clause (b) of Clause (1)". These words have got to be given their full effect.

The words "Notwithstanding anything" have come up for judicial interpretation on a large number of occasions and the meaning of those words is very well understood. It is, therefore, not necessary to cite authorities. That expression means that anything in Sub-clause (b) of Clause (1) shall be no impediment to what is contained in Clause (3). It is, therefore, clear that Clause (3) will not be governed by Sub-clause (b) of Clause (1) and the two have got to be read in a manner so as to give full scope to what is contained in Clause (3) of this Article. The substance of Clause (3) is that if <ORG> his prescribed any language other than the English language for use in Bills introduced in or Acts passed by the Legislature of the State or in Ordinances promulgated by the Governor of the State or in any order, rule, regulation or bye-law referred to in para (iii) of Sub-clause (b) of Clause (1), a translation of the same in the English language shall be published under the authority of the Governor, in the official <ORG> and the said translation shall be deemed to be the authoritative text in the English language.

That <ORG> was competent to prescribe Hindi is fully borne out by the provisions of Article 345 of the Constitution. By passing the two Acts to which I have already adverted in an earlier part of this judgment <ORG> in fact did prescribe Hindi as the language for official use in this State. Therefore any Bill or Act could be passed, any Ordinance promulgated and any order, rule, regulation or bye-law framed in the Hindi language but the Governor had tot get it translated into English and to get the English translation published in <ORG> and the English version so published in <ORG> under the authority of the Governor would be deemed, to be the authoritative English text of the notification.

It is contended by Mr. <NAME> that Sub-clause (b) of Clause (1) of Article 348 requires that all the Bills, Acts, Ordinances, orders, rules, regulations and bye-laws shall be in the English language and therefore the English translation made under Clause (3) will be the authoritative text of the Bill, Act, Ordinance, order, rule, regulation or bye-law as the case may be and the original passed in Hindi would be deemed to be a scrap of paper which cannot be looked into by any <ORG> and cannot be used for any official purpose.

In my judgment that is not the effect of Clause (1) (b) and Clause (3) of Article 348 read together. In out State after the passing of the U. P. Act s No. 1 of 1950 and 26 of 1951, all Bills are passed by the <ORG> in Hindi. Article 200 of the Constitution requires that when a Bill has been passed by <ORG> of a State or, in the case of a <ORG> having a Legislative Council, has been passed by both Houses of the <ORG>, it shall be presented to the Governor and the Governor shall declare either that he assents to the Bill or that he withholds assent therefrom or that he reserves the Bill for the consideration of the President. This would show that for purposes of assent it is the Bill as passed by the <ORG> which is placed before the Governor. The Bills passed in Hindi are assented to by the Governor or the President if the Governor decides to act under the second proviso to Article 200 of the Constitution.

The Bill passed in Hindi thus becomes the Act and a full-filedged law. Both the Original Act passed in Hindi as also its English translation are published in <ORG>. It is therefore obvious that the Hindi version as also its English translation are authoritative. I am therefore unable to agree with Mr. <NAME> that the Act passed in Hindi cannot be looked into at all by either <ORG> or <ORG> and cannot be used for any official purpose.

Mr. <NAME> has contended that if it be held that even the Hindi Act after assent has a legal existence, then there will be two Acts in respect of the same matter i.e., the Hindi Act as passed by the <ORG> and assented to by the Governor and its English translation published under the authority of the Governor under Clause (3) of Article 348 of the Constitution. In my judgment this argument is based upon a misinterpretation of the provisions of Article 348 of the Constitution. It is wrong to say that the original Act as passed in Hindi and its translation under the authority of the Governor in English bring into existence two rival Acts. The correct position is that of the same Act there are two versions: one is the Hindi version and the other the English one. All that in my judgment Article 348(1)(b)(ii) and (iii) requires is that when two such versions are brought on the Statute Book the English translation will be deemed to be the authoritative text if there is a conflict between the two versions which normally there should not be.

Inasmuch as it has been left under Article 348(3) to the high authority of the Governor to have a translation prepared the chances of the translation not being faithful to the original Act are extremely remote. Therefore, normally the two versions would give out the same, thing. <ORG>, however, in view, of the proverbial imperfection in all human' products and human institutions thought it proper by way of abundant caution to provide that if at all there ever be a divergence between the English version as translated and the original version in the language prescribed by the <ORG> the former would be deemed to be the authoritative text.

It is not necessary for me to explore the reasons which led <ORG> to make such a provision but the most obvious one appears to be that India was going to be a federation of States in which different languages were used and it was necessary to have one common language for all India and inter-State purposes both for, reasons of national unity as also of convenience. Un-like Canada where Acts of Parliament and the legislature of Quebec are passed in English as also in the regional language (French) and both are authoritative, we in India decided to follow the Irish example to some extent where Acts are passed in the Irish or English language but are translated into English or the Irish language in whichever they are not Originally passed by virtue of Section 5 of the Constitution of Ireland.

It would be noticed that under the provisions of Article 348 of the Constitution the language of <ORG> and <ORG> is English though in the case of the latter the Governor with the previous consent of the President may direct the use of any other language. The Bills, Acts, Ordinances, Rules, Regulations orders or Bye-laws have to come up for interpretation both before <ORG> and <ORG>. If there was no provision for an English translation and its being treated as an authoritative text, there would be difficulty both in <ORG> as also in <ORG> because Bills, Acts, Ordinances, etc. from Bengal would be in Bengali, from Madras in Tamil, from Andhra in Telugu from Gujarat in Gujarati, from Maha-rashtra in Marathi and from U. P. in Hindi. In order to avoid this difficulty and inconvenience as also to bring in national homogeniety, it was provided that there should be an authoritative text in English until the <ORG> by law otherwise provided. From what I have said above, fit is clear that both the Hindi version as also the English translation of a Bill, Act, etc., are valid. There is no competition between the two. It is only in case of conflict or divergence between the two versions that the question o authoritative text comes in.

The view that I am taking finds support from a <ORG> decision of this Court in the case of <CITATION> , AIR 1959 All 208 : (1959) 10 STC 424, and the decision of their Lordships of <ORG> in <CITATION> , (1961) 12 STC 429 at p. 435 : (AIR 1961 SC 1534 at p. 1538), where the Allahabad case mentioned above was approved of. In <ORG> case the Validation Act was published both in Hindi and in English. A question arose as to whether the Hindi version could be used to clear what appeared to be ambiguous in the English version, and their Lordships observed as follows :

"It should further be noted that the Validation Act was published both in Hindi and in English, and both of them were authorised versions. The words in the Hindi version make it clear beyond all doubt that the words, in the form in which they were in force immediately before the commencement of this Act' qualify the word 'sections' and not the word 'notifications'. That is the view expressed by a Bench of <ORG> in AIR 1959 All 208, on a comparison of the two versions, and we are in agreement with it".

9. In view of these weighty pronouncements it can no longer be a matter of dispute that both the Hindi and the English versions are authorised and both of them can be looked into and put to official use. For these reasons, with the greatest respect to the learned Judges who decided the case, I am unable to agree with the decision in the case of 1961 All LJ 506. A Division Bench of <ORG> in the case of <CITATION> , AIR 1958 Madh Pra 16, took the view that though the English version was the authoritative one within the meaning, of Article 348(1) Sub-clause (h) paras (ii) and (iii), the Hindi version could also be resorted to when the English version was ambiguous. I have already said above that both the English version and the original Act, ordinance, bye-law etc., passed in Hindi are full fledged laws and it is only in a case of divergence in the two versions that the English version may reign supreme.

10. There is another way of looking at the matter. Article 210 of the Constitution deals with the language to be used in the <ORG> and reads as follows :

"210. (1) Notwithstanding anything in Part XVII, but subject to the provisions of Article 348 , business in <ORG> shall be transacted in the official language or languages of the State or in Hindi or in English :

Provided that the Speaker of <ORG> or Chairman of <ORG>, or person acting as such, as the case may be, may permit any member who cannot adequately express himself in any of the languages aforesaid to address the house in his mother tongue.

(2) Unless <ORG> by law otherwise provides, this article shall, after the expiration of a period of fifteen years from the commencement of this Constitution, have effect as if the words 'or in English' were omitted therefrom."

11. So far as our State is concerned the official language is Hindi. Business in the <ORG>, therefore, can be transacted in Hindi and in fact is being so transacted. The word 'transact-ed is not confined only to the debates in the <ORG> but also comprehends the framing of laws. Article 210 opens with the words "Notwithstanding anything in Part XVII, but subject to the provisions of Article 348" which means that nothing in Part XVII except Article 348 shall be an impediment to what is provided in Article 210.  Article 348 does not provide that the proceedings in the <ORG> and the State <ORG>s shall be in English. All that it provides is that the authoritative texts of all the Bills, Acts, Ordinances, orders, rules, regulations and bye-laws shall be in the English language subject of course to what is contained in Clause (3) of that Article. Therefore, there is no impediment in the way of the State <ORG> in passing laws in Hindi so long as an English translation is made and published in <ORG> under the authority of the Governor. I have also shown that under Article 200 assent is given to the Hindi Act s passed by the U.P. <ORG>. It would, therefore, be futile to suggest that the laws passed or rules made in Hindi have no legal existence or are devoid of force and are of no effect.

A view similar to what I am taking was taken by a Division Bench of <ORG> in Raichand Amichand v. <NAME>, AIR 1957 Madh B. 26. It is however not necessary to place reliance upon that decision because the facts were slightly different. Unlike our State, before the commencement of the Constitution, Hindi was the official language in Madhya Bharat State and <ORG>. One of the learned Judges sitting in the Bench which decided the case of <CITATION> ., <ORG> expressed an opinion that if there is a conflict between the English and the. Hindi version the English version shall prevail. The other learned Judge who constituted the Bench ex-pressed no such opinion. The case went up in appeal to <ORG> and their Lordships there also did not express any opinion on this question. The learned single Judge who in <NAME> case, <ORG>, observed that the English version shall prevail over the Hindi version did not give any reasons for his conclusions.

For these reasons it is not possible for me to rely upon that decision though in substance I am to some extent also holding what was opined by the learned Judge in that case. For the reasons mentioned above, rejecting the submission made by Sri <NAME>, I hold that both the Hindi notification as also the English one in the present case can be looked into and that it is only in a case of conflict that the English notification may supersede the Hindi one.

12. This brings me to the consideration of another question whether the notification has been authenticated in the manner provided by the rules and has been published under the authority of the Governor in the State Gazette. Article 166 of the Constitution which deals with the conduct of business of <ORG> reads as follows :

"166. (1) All executive action of the Government of a State shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor.

(2) Orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the Governor shall be authenticated in such manner as may be specified in rules to be made by the Governor and the validity of an order or instrument which is so authenticated "shall not be called in question on the ground that it is not an order or instrument made or executed by the Governor.

(3) The Governor shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of the State, and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business in so far as it is not business with respect to which the Governor, is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion".

The counterpart of this Article in the Government of India Act, 1935 (hereinafter referred to as the 1935 Act) was Section 59 . The Governor framed rules of executive business in pursuance of Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 59 of the 1935 Act some time in the year 1937. Rule 1 of these rules provides that the same shall be called the Rules of Executive Business, 1937. Rules 14 and 15 of these rules read as follows :-

''14. All orders or instruments made or executed by order or on behalf of the Government of the United Provinces shall be expressed to be made by or by order of the Governor of the United Provinces.

15. Save in cases where an officer has been specially empowered to sign an order or instrument shall be signed by either the Secretary, the Additional Secretary, the Joint Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, the Under Secretary, or the Assistant Secretary to <ORG>, and such signatures shall be deemed to be the proper authentication of such order or instrument".

By virtue of Article 372(1) of the Constitution these rules are still in force. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the notification dated the 20th of May 1957, does not show that it had been authenticated in the manner required by Article 166 of the Constitution. In this connection it would be relevant to quote the opening words of the notification. They are as follows :

"In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 11-A of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (U. P. Act No. 28 of 1947), the Governor of Uttar Pradesh is pleased to direct that the powers exercisable by the State Government under the following sections of the said Act shall be exercisable also by the officers mentioned against each".

The question that requires consideration is as to whether the effect of reading this recital along with the concluding portions of the notification, ''By order, <NAME>. Secretary'' can be, that there has not been a proper authentication within the meaning of Article 166. The opening words of the notification clearly show that the order had been passed in the name of the Governor. By virtue of Rule 15 of the Rules of Business, the Secretary could have signed it for the Governor. The rule further provides that, once that is done, the notification would be deemed to be properly authenticated. The words "By order" occurring before the signatures of Sri <NAME>, Secretary, show that the notification was being issued under orders of the Governor. In the case of <CITATION> , 1952 SCR 674 : (AIR 1952 SC 317) an Order in the) following words was passed :

"Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (No. IV of 1950) <ORG> is pleased to direct that the said <NAME> be detained. By order of the Governor of Bombay, Sd./ V. T. Dehejia, Secretary to <ORG>, <ORG>." The order was challenged on the ground that it did not say that the Governor of Bombay is pleased to direct and thus the order did not fulfil the requirements of Article 166 of the Constitution. Their Lordships observed as follows :

"Now" we do not wish to encourage laxity of expression, nor do we mean to suggest that ingenious experiments: regarding the permissible limits of departure from the language of a Statute or of the Constitution will be worthwhile, but when all is said and done we must look to the substance of Article 166 and of the order.

The short answer in this case is that the order under consideration is 'expressed' to be made in the name of the Governor because it says 'By order of the Governor'. One of the meanings of 'expressed' is to make known the opinions or the feelings of a particular person, and when a Secretary to Government apprehends of man and tells him in the order that this is being done under the orders of the Governor, he is in substance saying that he is acting in the name of the Governor and, on his behalf, is making known to the detenu the opinion and feelings and orders of the Governor. In our opinion, the Constitution does not require a magic incantation which can only be expressed in a set formula of words. What we have to see is whether the substance of the requirement is there."

After saying that their Lordships held the notification to be valid. In our case though in the opening words of the notification it is clearly mentioned that the Governor of U. P. is pleased to direct, in the concluding part of the notification after the words "By order" and before the words "A. D. Pande" the words "of the Governor" are missing. It these words were there the matter would have been placed beyond controversy. The rules clearly provide that the Secretary can sign on behalf of the Governor. He is thus the agent of the Governor Reading the opening words of the notification along with the words "By order'' to my mind it is clear that the Secretary who was the agent of the Governor clearly stated that he was acting on behalf of the Governor,

13. In the case of <NAME>: <CITATION> , 1955-1 SCR 1011 : ((S) AIR 1955 SC 160) <NAME> spoke for the Court and held that the provisions of Article 166 are directory and not mandatory. One of the questions that were raised before their Lordship was that the show cause notice issued to Mr. <NAME> under Article 311 of the Constitution had not been authenticated in the manner required by. Article 166. <ORG> while rejecting that submission observed as follows:-

"As above mentioned, this notice was issued on behalf of the Government and was signed by the Chief Secretary of the United States of Travancore-Cochin who had under the rules of business framed by the <NAME>. the charge of the portfolio of "service and appointments" at the secretariat level in this State. This was, in our opinion substantial compliance with the directory provisions of Article 166 of the Constitution. It was held by the Court in <CITATION> , 1952 SCR 612 : (AIR, 1952 SC 181) that Clauses, (1) and (2) of Article 166 are directory only and non-compliance with them does not result in the order being invalid, and that, in order to determine whether there is compliance with these provisions all that is necessary to be seen is whether there has been substantial compliance with those requirements. In the present case there can be no manner of doubt that the notice sent by the Chief Secretary of the State and expressed to be on behalf of the Government and giving opportunity to the petitioner to show cause against the action proposed to be- taken against him was in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Article".

In the present case when the Notification clearly mentions that the Order had been passed by the Governor and bears an endorsement ''By order, <NAME>, Secretary'' there can be no manner of doubt that the same had been properly authenticated.

As a second string to his bow Mr. <NAME> submitted that even though it be held that the Notification had been authenticated as required by Article 166 of the Constitution, it suffers from the defect that it had not been published under the authority of the Governor as required under Clause (3) of Article 348 of the Constitution. Relying upon the case of <CITATION> . p., 20 FJR 325 : (AIR 1961 SC 1381) it was contended that Once an objection has been raised on the ground that the Notification had not been published in <ORG> under the authority of the Governor, the Government had to affirmatively prove, that it had been so published. The short answer to this argument is, as said above, that reading the Notification as a whole and, specially the opening words with the recital "By order, A.D. Pande Secretary" it is fully proved that the Notification was published under the authority of the Governor. "By order" stands fox "By the order of the Governor".

It was then submitted on the basis of a decision of this Court in 1961 All LJ 506 (Supra) that the Notification must show on the face of it that it is valid in all respects and was published under the authority, of the Governor. With great respect to the learned Chief Justice and the other learned Judge who were parties to that decision I find it extremely difficult to accept it as good law. In fact, the decision of their Lordships of <ORG> in the case of 20 FJR 325 : (AIR 1961 SC 1381) completely demolishes the assumption that the Notification must on the face of it disclose that it was published under the authority of the Governor, as the following observations in that judgment would show :

"The fact that in the notification which is made thereafter to publish the order, the formation of the opinion is not recited will not take away the power to make the order which had already arisen and led to the making of the order. The validity of the order therefore does not depend upon the recital of the formation of the opinion in the order but upon the actual formation of the opinion and the making of the order in consequence. It would therefore follow that if by inadvertence or otherwise the recital of the formation of the opinion is not mentioned in the preamble to the order the defect can be remedied by showing by other evidence in proceedings where challenge is made to the validity of the order, that in fact the order was made after such opinion had been formed and was thus a valid exercise of the power conferred by the law"

<ORG> in the case of <CITATION> , AIR 1945 P. C. 156 relying upon the provisions of Sections 4 and 114 of the Evidence Act held that there was a presumption that all official acts are properly done. In the present case, in addition to the initial presumption, there are the clear words "By authority" which indicate that the notification was being published under the authority of the Governor.

14. Lastly it was urged that there is nothing to show that the Secretary had the authority to sign or issue the notification on behalf of the Governor. In view of Rule 15 of the Business Rules reproduced in an earlier part of the judgment, this argument cannot be reasonably advanced. Apart from it, it was held in <CITATION> , AIR 1961 SC 221 that if a notification is made in the name of the Governor and authenticated by the Secretary as prescribed by Article 166(2) the validity of the order or instrument cannot be called in question on the ground that it is not an order or instrument made or executed by the Governor. Their Lordships went further and relying upon the case of AIR 1945 PC 156 (supra) held that even if the order did not originate from the Governor personally, but was made by some one only authorised by him in that behalf within Article 154(1 ), the Governor nevertheless remains responsible for the action of his subordinates in his name.

Consequently there is no justification for the Submission that unless a notification on the face of it shows that it had been published under the authority of the Governor, it has no legal validity. For these reasons I am of the opinion that neither the Hindi nor the English version of the notification can be ignored on the ground that they had not been properly authenticated nor can the English version be rejected on, the ground that it had not been published in <ORG> under the authority of the Governor. For these reasons in my opinion the first submission of the learned counsel fails.

15. Coming to the second submission it may be stated that the entire argument is built upon the circumstances that in the original notification as issued on the 20th of May the words 4&k and not 4&V were printed. However, by means of a corrigendum the mistake was corrected and 4 was to be read as 4 V. It is therefore not possible to hold that there was no delegation by <ORG> in respect of powers contemplated by Section 4 (k) of the Act. For these reasons, I reject the submission of <NAME> that there was no delegation in fact of powers under Section 4-k of the Act in the Hindi notification.

It may, however, be stated that even if that were so', no such mistake was committed in the English Notification and therein it was clearly notified that the State Government exercising powers under Section 11-A of the Act had delegated their powers under Section 4-k to the Labour Commissioner and the Deputy Labour Commissioner. I have already held above that that notification is valid. For these reasons it cannot be said that powers under Section 4-k had not been delegated to the Deputy Labour Commissioner and he could not have made the reference giving rise to this writ petition. The result is that both the submissions made by the learned counsel are rejected. I would therefore dismiss the petition with costs on parties.

<NAME>, J.

16. I agree with my brother <NAME> and have nothing to add.

<NAME>, J.

17. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of my brother <NAME> and I entirely agree with the views expressed by him. To accept the argument of <NAME>, learned counsel for the petitioner, would make the provision of Clause (3) of Article 348 of the Constitution of India not only superfluous but no more an exception to Clause 1 (b).

18. Until <ORG> by law otherwise provides, Clause (1) of Article 348 is made an exception to Articles 343 to 347 (given in Part XVII, Chapters I and II) of the Constitution of India, (a) prescribing English as the language to be used in all proceedings in <ORG> and in <ORG> and (b) requiring; the authoritative text of all Bills etc., to be in English. Clause (2) of Article 348 is an exception to Sub-clause (a) above inasmuch as it authorises the Governor or Rajpramukh of a State with the previous consent of the President to authorise the use of the Hindi language or any other official language in proceedings in <ORG> of that State, except that all judgments, decrees and orders passed of made by such <ORG> shall continue to be in English. Clause (3) of Article 348 is an exception to Sub-clause (b) above in as much as

(i) it recognises the use of the language prescribed by <ORG> for Bills or Acts or Ordinances or subordinate legislation;

(ii) it requires a translation of the same in the English language to be published under the authority of the Governor in the Official Gazette of the State; and

(iii) it deems the translation to be the authoritative text thereof in the English language.

19. Article 345 , which relates to official language or languages of a State has been made subject to Articles 346 and 347 but not to Article 348 , and it seems it was so done because a protection was given to the official language of the Bills, Acts and subordinate legislation, under Clause (3) of Article 348. The two provisions read together can only mean that the <ORG> of a State has the power to prescribe the language other than the English language for use in Bills introduced in, or Acts passed by, the <ORG> of the State or any Ordinances promulgated by the Governor or in any subordinate legislation, and the only requirement is that a translation of the same in the English language is to be published under the authority of the Governor in the Official Gazette of the State.

The provision of the authoritative text in English which is mandatory under Clause (1) of Article 348 is not so in Clause (3). Clause (3) Only lays down that the English translation published as aforesaid shall be deemed to be the authoritative text in the English language under the Article. Authoritative text as such under Clause (1) is quite distinct from the authoritative text in the English language under Clause (3), Under Clause (3) a recognition has been given to the official language and the English translation has only been deemed to be an authoritative text in the English language.

This maintains the originality of the Bill or the Act or the Ordinance or the subordinate legislation in the official language while the English translation is merely an authoritative text in English. It is in no way a substitute or replacement of the original Bill or Act or subordinate legislation made or passed in the official language and assented to by the Governor under the other provisions of the Constitution. It cannot therefore be accepted that even under Clause (3) of Article 348 the only authoritative text is the English translation as was argued by the learned counsel.

20. It is hardly necessary to add anything to what my brother has stated about the authentication of the English version. Suffice it to say that the notification itself begins with the words : "In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 11-A of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (U. P. Act No. 28 of 1947) the Governor of Uttar Pradesh is pleased to direct............" and ends with the words "By Order, Secretary''. The opening portion of the notification and its concluding portion have to be read together and. can only mean that the notification was issued under the authority of the Governor and was properly authenticated within the meaning of Article 166 read with rules of business which have also a statutory force. In the absence of any provision in the statute or the rules, regulation or bye-law, it is not necessary that the notification should show on the face of it that it has been published under the authority of the Governor. It is sufficient if the notification is issued "By Order" and is properly authenticated.

BY THE COURT

21. The petition is dismissed with costs on parties.