Case: Ramdhandas &amp; Another Vs. State of Punjab

notification No. 6567. S-Lab. 58/1737-RA. Dated June 1, 1958.)3. all booking offices of the Transport Services.(vide Punjab Government notification No. 6147/5815-C-Lab-58/1741-RA, dated June 1, 1958.)"2. The second category of cases are those covered by the second and third provisos to S. 9. Action has been taken under the third proviso to S. 9, by a notification which was issued at the same time as when the Act was brought into force which runs in the following terms:"The following categories of establishments in the State of Punjab shall not open earlier than eight o clock in the morning or close later than six o clock in the evening during the period from 1st May to thirty-first August every year:-1. establishments dealing in timber, manufacture of furniture, tents, supply of furniture or tents on hire, cycles or their repairs, or painting or dyeing;2. establishments, other than tailoring establishments, which include workshops or other establishments where articles are produced, adapted or manufactured, with a view to their use, transport or sale; and3. establishments dealing in agricultural produce brought for sale by producers.(vide Notification No. 6567. S-Lab-58/- 1735-RA, dated June 1, 1958)."3. Those outside S. 4 and which are not covered by notifications under the provisos to S. 9 have, of course, to adjust their business in accordance with the requirements of the Act. It is in the context of these exceptions and the elasticity for which provision is made to meet the imperative requirements of particular types of business, that the constitutional objection has to be considered.8. The constitutional objection is that, the impugned provisions impose unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right of the petitioners "to carry on their trade or business". The regulation of contracts of labour so as to ameliorate their conditions of work is in reality a problem of human relationship and social control for the advancement of the community. The public and social interest in the health and efficiency of the worker is, at the present day, beyond challenge. Our Constitution does not protect or guarantee any fundamental right in the nature of the provision in Art. 1, S. 10 (1), of the U. S. Constitution against "impairment of the obligation of contracts". The only test of constitutional validity, therefore, is whether the provision in the impugned law, which is enacted to avoid physical overstrain of the worker, and so as to afford him better conditions of work, and more regulated hours, thus ensuring to him a reasonable amount of leisure-factors which would render the restrictions in the interest of the general public, is unreasonable from the point of view of the employer. For answering this question it would be necessary to ask-are the restrictions necessary, or do they go beyond what is reasonably needed to protect the worker? Judged by this test, neither the 48-hour week, nor the specification of the opening and closing hours can be said to have gone beyond what by modern standards are necessary for ensuring the health and efficiency of the employee. It might also be added that the concept of what is necessary to secure the welfare of labour, or indeed of the elements which determine its content are neither of them fixed or static, but are dynamic, being merely the manifestation or index of the social conscience as it grows and develops from time to time.9. Besides, this point regarding restrictions of this nature being unreasonable is concluded against the petitioners by the decision of this Court in Manohar Lal v. The State of Punjab, Cri. Appeal No. 173 of 1956: (Since reported in AIR 1961 SC 418 ) judgment on which was delivered on November 11, 1960. The provision there impugned was S. 7 of the Punjab Trade Employees Act, 1940, (which, as stated earlier, had been repealed and re-enacted with modifications by the Act) which directed that the shops and establishments to which it applied should remain closed on one day in the week (corresponding to S. 10 of the act of 1958). The appellant before this Court was a small trader who did not employ any person under him but who, like the second petitioner before us, himself with the members of his family attended to all the requirements of his shop. Basing himself on this feature he challenged the validity of the provision which restricted his right to carry on his business in such manner as he chose on all the seven days in the week. In repelling these objections this Court said :"The ratio of the legislation is social interest in the health of the worker who forms an essential part of the community and in whose welfare, therefore, the community is vitally interested. It is in the light of this purpose that the provisions of the Act have to be scrutinized......The learned Judges of the High Court have rested their decision on this part of the case on the reasoning that the terms of the impugned section might be justified on the ground that it is designed in the interest of the owner of the shop or establishment himself and that his health and welfare is a matter of interest not only to himself but to the general public...... A restriction imposed with a view to secure this purpose would, in our opinion, be clearly saved by Art. 19(6) .....Apart from this, the constitutionality of the impugned provision might be sustained on another ground also, viz., with a view to avoid evasion of provisions specifically designed for the protection of workmen employed. It may be pointed out that acts innocent in themselves may be prohibited and the restrictions in that regard would be reasonable, if the same were necessary to secure the efficient enforcement of valid provisions. The inclusion of a reasonable margin to ensure effective enforcement will not stamp a law otherwise valid as within legislative competence with the character of unconstitutionality as being unreasonable."10. These observations in our opinion, clearly apply and suffice to support the validity of the related provisions here impugned.11.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]we may point out that the provisions of the Act contemplate that establishments might fall under three categories: (1) where it is necessary in the public interest, and having regard to the service which they render to the community, that the normal hours of working should not be subject to the restrictions imposed by Ss. 9 or 10, (2) those in which there is no need for complete freedom from these restrictions, but in which an adjustment merely as regards the hours set out in S. 9 is sufficient, (3) those in which neither the requirements of the trade nor, of course, the interest of the general public would suffer if the establishment adjusted its operations its conformity with thepublic and social interest in the health and efficiency of the worker is, at the present day, beyond challenge. Our Constitution does not protect or guarantee any fundamental right in the nature of the provision in Art. 1, S. 10 (1), of the U. S. Constitution against "impairment of the obligation of contracts". The only test of constitutional validity, therefore, is whether the provision in the impugned law, which is enacted to avoid physical overstrain of the worker, and so as to afford him better conditions of work, and more regulated hours, thus ensuring to him a reasonable amount of leisure-factors which would render the restrictions in the interest of the general public, is unreasonable from the point of view of the employer. For answering this question it would be necessary to ask-are the restrictions necessary, or do they go beyond what is reasonably needed to protect the worker? Judged by this test, neither the 48-hour week, nor the specification of the opening and closing hours can be said to have gone beyond what by modern standards are necessary for ensuring the health and efficiency of the employee. It might also be added that the concept of what is necessary to secure the welfare of labour, or indeed of the elements which determine its content are neither of them fixed or static, but are dynamic, being merely the manifestation or index of the social conscience as it grows and develops from time to time.