Restrictions on the hours of work and the opening and closing hours of establishments imposed by the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 (Punjab Act 15 of 1958) were reasonable and in the interest of the general public, and therefore did not violate the fundamental right to carry on trade or business under Article 19(6) of the Constitution.

Judgment

AYYANGAR, J. : The Constitutional validity of the operative provisions of the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 (Punjab Act 15 of 1958), which we shall hereafter refer to as the Act, is challenged in this writ petition filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution, seeking reliefs appropriate to such a challenge.

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.

3. We shall now proceed to set out the impugned provisions of the Act with a view to determine whether for all or any of the reasons set out in the petition, any of them could be said to constitute an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on trade or business so as not to be protected by Art. 19(6) of the Constitution which is the gravamen of the complaint formulated in the petition.

4. The Act received the assent of the President on April 25, 1958 and was published in the Punjab Gazette on May 1, 1958, According to the preamble, it is an Act to provide for the regulation of conditions of work and employment in shops and commercial establishments. The Act repealed and re-enacted, with modifications, the Punjab Trade Employees Act,1940, to which enactment also it would be necessary to advert in its proper place. Section 1(3) of the Act provides that the Act shall come into force on such date as Government may, by notification appoint in this behalf and by a notification under this provision the Act was directed to come into force from June 1, 1958. The Act, however, did not of its own force apply to the entirety of the Punjab State, for S. 1(4) enacted:

"1 (4). It shall apply in the first instance to the areas specified in the Schedule, but Government may by notification direct that it shall also apply to such other area and on such date as may be specified in the notification."

Mandi Dabwali where the petitioners carry on business is one of the local areas in the district of Hissar set out in the Schedule annexed. We might here note that the main grievance of the petitioners appears to be that it has not been brought into force in neighbouring local areas and that this disparity in the regulations is acting to the disadvantage of people carrying on business in the areas set out in the Schedule. This, however, cannot obviously be a ground of constit