Case: Manohar Lal Vs. The State Of Punjab

7. (1) Save as otherwise provided by this Act, every shop or commercial establishment shall remain closed on a close day(2)(i). The choice of a close day shall rest with the occupier of a shop or commercial establishment and shall be intimated to the prescribed authority within two months of the date on which this Act comes into forceto extract the provision relevant to this appeal. The appellant had chosen Friday as the close day, i. e., the day of the week on which his shop would remain closed. The Inspector of Shops and Commercial Establishments, Ferozepore Circle, visited the appellants shop of Friday, the 29th of January, 1954, and found the shop open and the appellants son selling articles. Obviously, if S. 7(1) were valid, the appellant was guilty of a contravention of its terms and he was accordingly prosecuted in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, Ferozepore, for an offence under S. 16 of the Act which ran:Subject to the other provisions of this Act, whoever contravenes any of the provisions of this Act...............shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five rupees for the first offence and one hundred rupees for every subsequent offenceThe appellant admitted the facts but he pleaded that the Act would not apply to his shop or establishment for the reason that he had engaged no strangers as employees but that the entire work in the shop was being done by himself and by the members of his family, and that to hold that S. 7(1) of the Act would apply to his shop would be unconstitutional as violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Arts. 14, 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution. The Additional District Magistrate rejected the plea raised by the appellant regarding the constitutionality of S. 7 (1) in its application to shops where no employees were engaged and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 100/- and simple imprisonment in default of payment of the fine (since the appellant had been convicted once before). The appellant applied to the High Court of Punjab to revise this order, but the Revision was dismissed. The learned Judges, however, granted a certificate of fitness which has enabled the appellant to file the appeal to this Court.

Reasoning: 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. The provisions could, therefore, be justified as for securing administrative convenience and for the proper enforcement of it without evasion.