# November II. kl cmohar Lal v. The State of Punjab Ayyangar ] •

- **Citation:** [1961] 2 S.C.R. 343
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1961
- **Bench:** Jafer Imam, J. L. Kapur, K. c. DAS GU.PTA, Raghubar Dayal, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/november-ii-kl-cmohar-lal-v-the-state-of-punjab-ayyangar-2232
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Trade Employees-Close day-Enactment, if violative of funilamental rights-Workers' Welfare-Protection-Restriction, if imreasonable-Punjab Trade Employees Act, z940, (Punj. X of z940)
s. 7 (I)
The appellant who was a shopkeeper was convicted for the
second time by the Additional District Magistrate for contravening the provisions of s. 7(1) of the Punjab Trade Employees Act,
1940, under which he was required to keep his shop closed on
the day which he had himself chosen as a "close day ''. He
raised the plea that the Act did not apply to his shop as he did
not employ any-stranger but that himself alone worked in it and
that the application of s. 7(1) to his shop would be· violative of
his fundamental rights under Arts. 14, 19(1)(f) and (g) of the
Constitution and also that the restriction imposed was not reasonable within Art. xg(6) as it was not in the interest of the general
1960
November II.
kl cmohar Lal
v.
The State of
Punjab
Ayyangar ] •
344
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1961]
public. The High Court dismissed his application for rev1s1on
of the Magistrate's order. On appeal on a certificate of the
High Court,
Held, that the main object of the Act was the welfare of the
employees and to protect their as well as the employers' health
by preventing them from overwork. Such a restriction being in
the interest of the general public was reasonable within the
meaning of Art. 19(6) of the Constitution.
The provisions of s. 7(1) were constitutionally valid and
were justified as for securing administrative convenience and
avoiding evasion of those provisions designed for the protection
of the workmen.
Manohar Lal v. The Staie, [1951] S.C.R. 671, referred to.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 173/1956.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated May
23, 1956, of the Punjab High Court in Criminal
Revision No. 1058/1954.
K. L. Arora, for the appellant.
N. S. Binilra and R.H. Dhebar, for tho respondent.
1960. November 11. The Judgment of tho Court
was delivered by
AYYANGAR J.-This appeal on a certificate under
Arts. 132 and 134(1) of the Constitution granted by the
High Court of Punjab raises for consideration t,he constitutionality of s. 7(1) of the Punjab Trade Employees Act, 1940.
The a.ppellant-Manohar Lal-has a shop at Ferozepore Ca.ntt. in which business is carried on under
the nn.me and style of' Imperial Book Depot'. Section 7 of the Punjab Trade Employees Act, 1940 (heroinaftcr called the Act}, enacts :
"7. (1) Save as otherwise provided by this Act,
,every shop or commercial establishment shall remain
closed on a. c1ose day.
(2)(i).
The choice of a close day shall rest with
the occupier of a shop or commercial establishment
and ::ihall be intimated to the prescribed authority
within two months of tho date on which this Act comes
into force."
tn extract the provision relevant to this appeal. The
(
"
~.
2. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
345
a.ppellan~ ha.d chosen Friday as " the close day '', i.e.,
the da.y of the week on which his shop would remain
closed. The Inspector of Shops and Commercial
Establishments, Ferozepore Circle, visited the appellant's shop on Friday, th-e 29th of January, 1954,
a.nd found the shop open and the appellant's son selling articles.
Obviously, if s. 7(1) were valid, the
a.ppella.nt wa.s guilty of a contravention of its terms
and he was accordingly prosecuted in the Court of the
Additional District Ma.gistra.te, 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 offence"
The 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

## Text

2 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
343
provisions of cl. (b) of s. 3 it is clear that no question
I96o
of discrimination at all arises. Similarly the fact that
-
t•
t k
b th G
t ·
State of Uttar
ac ion was
~ ~n y
e overnmen m an emergency Pra!Wh .s. Others
in the pubhc mterest would be a complete answer to
v.
the argument that that action is violative of the pro. Basti Sugar Mills
visions of Art. 19(l)(g). The restriction placed upon
Co., Ltd.
the employer by such an order is only a temporary
one and having been placed in the public interest Mudholkar f.
would fall under cl. (6) of Art. 19 of the Constitution.
Upon this view we hold that the High Court was in
error in issuing a writ against the State Government
quashing their order in so far as it related to pay-
' ment of bonus. The appeal is allowed and order of
the High Court is set a.side. Costs of this appeal will
be paid by the respondents.
Appeal allowed.
MANOHAR LAL
v.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB
(JAFER IMAM, J. L. KAPUR, K. c. DAS GU.PTA,
RAGHUBAR DAYAL and
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.)
Trade Employees-Close day-Enactment, if violative of funilamental rights-Workers' Welfare-Protection-Restriction, if imreasonable-Punjab Trade Employees Act, z940, (Punj. X of z940)
s. 7 (I)
The appellant who was a shopkeeper was convicted for the
second time by the Additional District Magistrate for contravening the provisions of s. 7(1) of the Punjab Trade Employees Act,
1940, under which he was required to keep his shop closed on
the day which he had himself chosen as a "close day ''. He
raised the plea that the Act did not apply to his shop as he did
not employ any-stranger but that himself alone worked in it and
that the application of s. 7(1) to his shop would be· violative of
his fundamental rights under Arts. 14, 19(1)(f) and (g) of the
Constitution and also that the restriction imposed was not reasonable within Art. xg(6) as it was not in the interest of the general
1960
November II.
kl cmohar Lal
v.
The State of
Punjab
Ayyangar ] •
344
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1961]
public. The High Court dismissed his application for rev1s1on
of the Magistrate's order. On appeal on a certificate of the
High Court,
Held, that the main object of the Act was the welfare of the
employees and to protect their as well as the employers' health
by preventing them from overwork. Such a restriction being in
the interest of the general public was reasonable within the
meaning of Art. 19(6) of the Constitution.
The provisions of s. 7(1) were constitutionally valid and
were justified as for securing administrative convenience and
avoiding evasion of those provisions designed for the protection
of the workmen.
Manohar Lal v. The Staie, [1951] S.C.R. 671, referred to.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 173/1956.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated May
23, 1956, of the Punjab High Court in Criminal
Revision No. 1058/1954.
K. L. Arora, for the appellant.
N. S. Binilra and R.H. Dhebar, for tho respondent.
1960. November 11. The Judgment of tho Court
was delivered by
AYYANGAR J.-This appeal on a certificate under
Arts. 132 and 134(1) of the Constitution granted by the
High Court of Punjab raises for consideration t,he constitutionality of s. 7(1) of the Punjab Trade Employees Act, 1940.
The a.ppellant-Manohar Lal-has a shop at Ferozepore Ca.ntt. in which business is carried on under
the nn.me and style of' Imperial Book Depot'. Section 7 of the Punjab Trade Employees Act, 1940 (heroinaftcr called the Act}, enacts :
"7. (1) Save as otherwise provided by this Act,
,every shop or commercial establishment shall remain
closed on a. c1ose day.
(2)(i).
The choice of a close day shall rest with
the occupier of a shop or commercial establishment
and ::ihall be intimated to the prescribed authority
within two months of tho date on which this Act comes
into force."
tn extract the provision relevant to this appeal. The
(
"
~.
2. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
345
a.ppellan~ ha.d chosen Friday as " the close day '', i.e.,
the da.y of the week on which his shop would remain
closed. The Inspector of Shops and Commercial
Establishments, Ferozepore Circle, visited the appellant's shop on Friday, th-e 29th of January, 1954,
a.nd found the shop open and the appellant's son selling articles.
Obviously, if s. 7(1) were valid, the
a.ppella.nt wa.s guilty of a contravention of its terms
and he was accordingly prosecuted in the Court of the
Additional District Ma.gistra.te, 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 offence"
The 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 thats. 7(1) of the Act would
apply to his shop would be unconstitutional as violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Arts. 14,
19(l)(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 acertificate of fitness which ha.a enabled the appellant to
file the appeal to this Court.
Though the validity of s. 7( 1) of the Act was challenged in the High Court on various grounds, learned
Counsel who appeared before us rested his attack on
one point. He urged that the provision violated the
'44
1960
Manohar Lal
v.
The State of
Punjab
Ayyangar ].
Manohar Lal
v.
The State of
Punjab
Ayyangar ].
346
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961]
appellant's right to carry on his trade or business
guaranteed by Art. 19(l){g) and that the restriction
imposed was not reasonable within Art. 19(6) because
it was not in the interest of the general public. Learned Counsel drew our attention to the long title of the
Act reading" An Act to limit the hours of work of
Shop Assistants and Commercial Employees and to
make certain regulations concerning their holidays,
wages and terms of service,, and pointed out that the
insistence on the appellant to close his shop, in which
there were no" employees", was really outside the
purview of the legislation and could not be said to
subserve the purposes for which the Act was enacted.
In short, the submission of the learned Counsel was
that the provision for the compulsory closure of his
shop for one day in the week served no interests of
the general public and that it was unduly and unnecessarily restrictive of his freedom to carry on a. lawful
trade or business, otherwise in accordance with law, as
be thought best and in a manner or mode most convenient or profitable.
We are clearly of the opinion that the submissions
of the learned Counsel should be repelled. The long
. title of the Aot extracted earlier and on which learned
Counsel placed considerable reliance as a. guide for
the determination of the scope of the Act and the
policy underlying the legislation, no doubt, indicates
the main purposes of the enactment but cannot, obviously, control the express operative provisions of the
Act, such as for example the terms of s. 7(1). Nor is
the learned counsel right in his argument that the
terms of s. 7(1) are irrelevant to secure the purposes
or to subserve the underlying policy of the Act. 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.
Thus, s. 3 which la.ya down the restrictions subject to
which alone "young persons", defined as those under
the age of 14, could be employed in any shop or commercial establishment, is obviously with a view to
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
347
ensuring the health of the rising generation of citizens.
Section 4 is concerned with imposing restrictions
regarding the hours of work which might be extracted
from workers other than " young persons". Section 4(1) enacts:
" Subject to the prov:isions of this Act, no person
shall be employed a.bout the business of a. shop or
commercial establishment for more than the normal
maximum working hours, that is to say, fifty-four
hours in any one week a.nd ten hours in a.ny one
day."
bringing the law in India. a.s respects maximum working hours in line with the norms suggested by the
International Labour Convention. Sub-clauses (4) a.nd
(5) of this section a.re of some relevance to the matter
now under consideration :
"(4) No person who ha.s to the knowledge of the
occupier of a. shop or commercial establishment been
previously employed on any day in a. factory shall be
employed on that day a.bout the business of the shop
or commercial establishment for a. longer period than
will, together with the time during which he ha.s been
previously employed on that day in the factory, complete th~ number of hours permitted by this Act.
(5) No person shall work about the business of a.
shop or commercial establishment or two or more
shops or commercial establishments or a. shop or commercial establishment and a. factory in excess of the
period during which 'he may be lawfully employed
under this Act."
It will be seen that while under sub.cl. (4) employers
a.re injuncted from employing persons who had already
worked for the maximum number of permitted hours
in another establishment, sub-cl. (5) lays a.n embargo
on the worker himself from injuring his health by
overwork in an endeavour to earn more. From this
it would be apparent that the Act is concerned-and
properly concerned-with the welfare of the worker
and seeks to prevent injury to it, not merely from the
action of the employer but from his own. In other
words, the worker is prevented from attempting to
earn more wages by working longer hours than is good
Manohar Lal
v.
The Slate of
Punjab
Ayyaniar ].
Manohar Lal
v.
The State of
Punjab
Ayyangar ].
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
348
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961]
for him. If such a condition is necessary or proper
in the case of a worker, there does not seem to be anything unreasonable in applying the same or similar
principles to ,the employer who works on his own
business. 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.
The legislation is in effect the exercise of social control
over the manner in which business should be carried
on-regulated in the interests of the health and welfare
not merely of those employed in it but of all those
engaged in it.
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 com- .
petence 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.
As point~d out by this Court in Manohar Lal v. The
State(') (when the appellant challenged the validity
of this identical provision but on other grounds):
" The legislature may have felt it necessary, in
order to reduce the possibilities of evasion to a minimum, to encroach upon the liberties of those who
would not otherwise have been affected ............ To
require a shopkeeper, who employs one or two men,
(1) (1951] S.C.R. 671, 675.
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
349
to close and permit his rival, who employs perhaps a
dozen members of his family, to remain open, clearly
places the former at a grave commercial disadvantage. To permit such a distinction might well engender
discontent and in the end react upon the relations
between employer and employed."
We have, therefore, no hesitation in repelling the
attack on the constitutionalit~ of s. 7(1) of the Act.
The appeal fails and is dismised.
Appeal dismissed.
IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES (INDIA)
PRIVATE LIMITED
v.
THE WORKMEN
(AND CONNECTED APPEAL)
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR and K. N.
W ANCHOO, JJ.)
Industrial Dispute-Award, if can deprive workmen of preexisting benefits-Age of retirement-Fixation-Relevant considerations-Failure of Tribunal to consider evidence adduced by~parties
Duty of Supreme Court.
The workmen of the Imperial Chemical Industries at Bombay claimed, firstly, twice the employee's normal rate of pay for
the work done on Sundays and holidays and secondly that all
employees of the company shall not compulsorily be retired by
the company before they attain the age of 60. The company
djsputed the demands on the grounds that it had paid Sunday
and holiday work allowance in terms of an earlier award, and as
no change of circumstances had taken place since the making
of the award a revision was not justified; as for the age of
retirement as it had fixed the retirement age at 55 for all its
employees throughout India, any revision would have r,epercussion in other branches of the company.
The tribunal partly allowed the claim of the workmen and
directed the company to give the employees concerned for work
done on Sundays and holidays half a day's total salary and
dearness allowance ; and for the work done by the employees on
Manohar Lal
v.
The Stale of
Punjab
Ayyangar .f.
N ovt111ber r 4.