SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 1345

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. Nageswara Rao, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.
State of Haryana – Appellant
Versus
Faridabad Industries Association & Anr. – Respondents
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 1917 of 2022 (Arising Out of Impugned Interim Order Dated 03-02-2022 in CWP No. 24967 of 2021 Passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh)
Decided On : 17-02-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Tushar Mehta, Ld. SG Mr. B.K. Satija, AAG/ADVOCATE, Mr. Rajat Nair, Advocate Mr. Jagbir Malik, AAG Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Advocate Mr. Shekhar Raj Sharma, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Malak Manish Bhatt, Advocate, Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Advocate, Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Advocate Mr. Rajat Bector, Advocate, Mr. Udbhav Nanda, Advocate, Mr. S HariHaran, Advocate Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, Advocate, Ms. Prapti Allagh, Advocate Mr. Dushyant Dave, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Neha Sangwan, Advocate, Mr. Shiv Vinayak Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Jeetender Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Sidharth Dias, Advocate, For the Respondent.

Headnote:

Constitutional Validity - Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020 - No. reasons given by High Court for staying legislation

Fact of the Case:

The constitutional validity of Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020 was challenged by the Faridabad Industries Association and others before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court stayed the implementation of the Act, leading to the State of Haryana filing a special leave petition.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court's order staying the legislation was set aside by the Supreme Court due to insufficient reasons provided by the High Court for the stay. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to decide the Writ Petition expeditiously and instructed the State of Haryana not to take coercive steps against the employers in the meantime.

Issues: Constitutional validity of the Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020 and the sufficiency of reasons for staying the legislation.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts are reluctant to pass interim orders staying legislations unless it is manifestly unjust or glaringly unconstitutional. The High Court's order was set aside due to lack of sufficient reasons for staying the legislation.

Final Decision: The Special Leave Petition was disposed of, with the High Court directed to decide the Writ Petition expeditiously and the State of Haryana instructed not to take coercive steps against the employers in the meantime.

ORDER

1. The constitutional validity of Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020 ('the Act') has been challenged by the Respondent - Faridabad Industries Association and others before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. On 3rd February, 2022, the High Court stayed the implementation of the Act. Aggrieved by the said Order, State of Haryana is before us by filing this special leave petition.

2. The learned Solicitor General of India appearing for the State of Haryana, submitted that the impugned order staying the legislation is contrary to the law laid down by this Court. He relied upon several judgments of this Court in which it has been held that there is a presumption of legality in favour of the legislation and it is ordinarily not stayed unless the legislation is prima facie unconstitutional or manifestly illegal. He further submitted that no reasons have been given by the High Court while staying the impugned legislation.

3. Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent no.1, took us through the order passed by the High Court to argue that impugned order cannot be said to be vitiated due to non application of mind. The High Court was prima facie satisfied that the legislation is unconstitutional for which reason the interim order was passed. He stated that over 48,000 companies which are registered in the State of Haryana, would face immense hardship as they cannot employ anybody from outside the State from the date of commencement of the Act. He submitted that, if this Court feels that reasons have to be given by the High Court, the order passed by the High Court should be continued and the High Court may be requested to decide the matter finally.

4. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing for Manesar Industrial Welfare Association adopted the arguments of Mr. Dushyant Dave. In case, this Court is setting aside the Order passed by the High Court, Mr. Shyam Divan submitted that the impugned order should be treated as an ad interim order and the High Court can be requested to decide the Interlocutory Application within a time frame. In the alternative, he submitted that a direction can be given by this Court to the State Government not to take coercive steps against the employers while requesting the High Court to decide the Writ Petition at the earliest.

5. Courts are reluctant to pass interim orders staying legislations. Stay of legislation can only be when the Court is of the opinion that it is manifestly unjust or glaringly unconstitutional. No reasons are given by the High Court in support of the impugned order by which a legislation is stayed. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside.

6. The impugned order dated 03rd February, 2022 passed by the High Court is set aside as the High Court has not given the sufficient reasons for staying the legislation.

7. We do not intend to deal with the merits of the matter as we propose to request the High Court to decide the Writ Petition expeditiously and not later than a period of four weeks from today. The parties are directed to be present before the High Court on 22nd February, 2022 for fixing the schedule of hearing. The parties are directed not to seek adjournment.

8. In the meanwhile, the State of Haryana is directed not to take any coercive steps against the employers.

9. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of.

10. I.A. Nos. 20323 and 20178 of 2022 - Applications for intervention are allowed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top