ION Civil Appeal No 864 of 1987
From the Judgment and Order dated 2351986 of the Allahabad High Court in CMWP No 13975 of 1985
MK Ramamurthi and AK Sangal for the Appellant
Anil Dev Singh GB Pai OP Sharma Mrs Shobha Dikshit RC Gubrela KR Gupta and RK Sharma for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH J
The appellant has questioned in this appeal by special leave the constitutional validity of sub section 4 of section 6 of the UP hereinafter referred to as the Act  and also the validity of the Order dated December 5 1984 passed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh remitting an award passed by the Labour Court Meerut for reconsideration by it
The appellant was an employee of the Management Ms Electra India Ltd Meerut Respondent No 5 in the above appeal
The services of the appellant were terminated by the Management by its Order dated April 4 1977 and the said termination led to an industrial dispute
The State Government by its Order dated May 5 1979 made under section 4 K of the Act referred the said dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court Meerut
The question which was referred to the Labour Court read as follows Whether the terminationremoval from work of the employee Shri BP Rajwanshi by the employers by their Order dated 441977 is justified andor legal If not to 474 what benefitsdamages is the concerned employee entitled to and with what other details On the basis of the pleadings filed by the parties the following issues were framed by the Labour Court 1
Was Shri BB Rajwanshi not a workman as defined in the UP  If so has this court jurisdiction to try this case 2
Did Shri BB Rajwanshi not make efforts to minimise the losses due to unemployment 3
To what relief if any is Shri BB Rajwanshi entitled 4
Has Shri BB Rajwanshi been retrenched If so how does it affect the case After recording the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing the arguments the Labour Court held i that the appellant was a workman as defined in the Act ii that the termination of the services of the appellant was illegal and iii that the appellant was entitled to be reinstated in his post with continuity of service and also to the payment of backwages and other benefits
The Labour Court accordingly passed an award on August 2 1984 and forwarded it to the State Government


Summary:
 The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court questioning the vires of section 4 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949
He did not however mention the particulars of the premises of which he claimed to be the owner and in respect of which he was making a grievance
The High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine
Hence the appeal
It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that section 4 of the Act was ultra vires the Constitution and violative of article 14 and would be an interference with the fundamental right guaranteed under article 191g and was unreasonable and unjust inasmuch as it provided that rent prevalent in 1938 should be taken as the basis for the determination of higher rent and that pegging the rent prevalent in 1938 as the basic rent was inequitable and unjust in the background of the tremendous rise in prices and that the provisions of fixation of rent in other States were different and were more fair and just and reasonable in comparison
Dismissing the appeal this Court  HELD 11 A petition challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions must be in the context of certain facts and not in abstract or vacuum
109Ei 108 In the instant case the essential facts necessary to examine the validity of the Act are lacking
On this ground the petition was rightly rejected and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the High Court on this ground alone
109E F 21 Article 14 does not authorise the striking down of a law of one State on the ground that in contrast with a law of another State on the same subject its provisions are discriminatory or different
Nor does it contemplate a law of the Centre or of the State dealing with similar subjects being held to be unconstitutional by a process of comparative study of the provisions of two enactments
The source of authority for the two statutes being different article 14 can have no application
113C D 22 Each legislature in the several States has provided the method of determination of fair rent on the basis of legal conditions as judged to be by each such legislature
The legislative wisdom of such legislation is not a ground on which the validity of the Act can be challenged
113B 23 It must be the function of the legislature of each State to follow the methods considered to be suited for that State that would be no ground for judging the arbitrariness or unreasonableness of a particular legislation in question by comparison
What may be The problem in Madras may not be the problem in Punjab
113H 114A The Act in question was passed in 1949 and it pegged the rent prevalent in the similar houses in 1938 and as such is not unreasonable per se
The rises started tremendously after the end of the Second World War after the partition of the country
It cannot therefore be said that per se there is unreasonableness in fixing the prices in 1938 level
114A B One of the objects of the Act was to restrict the increase in rent
With that object the Act as provided certain provisions as to fixation of the fair rent
Therefore having regard to the specific preamble of the Act there is nothing unreasonable in the Scheme contemplated under section 4 of the Act
114B C Prabhakara Nair and others vs State of Tamil Nadu and others  and Ms Raval  Co vs KC Ramachandran and others  2 SCR 629 referred to 109