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

2. These are two petitioners and the nature of the business carried on by them, which is set out in the petition, indicates that they have combined with a view to bring up before the Court the implication of the enactment with reference to different types of business which traders in the Punjab might be carrying on and which would be impeded or restricted by the provisions of the Act. The first petitioner states that he has a shop at Mandi Dabwali in Hissar District where he carries on business in the purchase and sale of grains etc. in wholesale. The relevant averment in regard to the nature of his business is that the customers who supply him with goods bring them loaded in carts drawn by camels or bullocks and that these vehicles arrive at his godowns at all hours of the day and night. He also states that for the purpose of the purchases or sales effected by him, he receives messages by telephone and telegram both during the day and the night. These, according to him, render necessary, if he has to carry on business as he has been doing all along, that his place of business should be kept open practically the whole of the day and night, i.e., for all the 24 hours. The second petitioner states that he is carrying on a retail business on a small scale, and that he employs no outsider but attends to all the work in the shop himself, with the assistance, if necessary, of the members of his family. In this case also it is stated that the goods purchased are brought to him at all hours of the day and night and similarly he has to receive messages during the entire period. It is in this background that the petitioners desire that the Court should view the restrictions imposed upon them by those provisions of the Act which are challenged in the petition.

Reasoning:
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.