A provision mandating the closure of shops on a specified day is a reasonable restriction on the right to carry on trade or business under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution if it is designed to protect the health and welfare of workers and to prevent evasion of provisions specifically designed for their protection.

Judgment

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 the constitutionality of S. 7(1) of the Punjab Trade Employees Act, 1940.

2. The appellant-Manohar Lal-has a shop at Ferozepore Cantt. in which business is carried on under the name and style of Imperial Book Depot . Section 7 of the Punjab Trade Employees Act, 1940 (hereinafter called the Act), enacts :

"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 force."

to 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 appellant s shop of Friday, the 29th of January, 1954, and found the shop open and the appellant s 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 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 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.

3. 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 appellant s right to carry on his trade or business guaranteed by Art. 19(1) (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 he thought best and in a manner or mode most convenient or profitable.

4. We are clea