Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : MOHAMMED AHMED ANSARI
Grandhi Mangaraju, Manager, Brothers Shop and Branches, Rajam - Appellant
Versus
Assistant Labour Inspector, Srikakulam - Respondent
Decided On : 03-30-59
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 19 (1) (G) - SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS ACT, XXXVI OF 1947 - SECTION 11 (1) - CLOSURE OF SHOPS ON WEEKLY HOLIDAYS - REASONABLENESS OF RESTRICTION - CONSTITUTIONALITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Hindu family firm, challenged the constitutionality of Section 11 (1) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, XXXVI of 1947, which required shops to remain entirely closed on one day of the week. The petitioner argued that the provision was arbitrary and unreasonable, as it applied to shops with no employees.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 11 (1) was constitutional and a reasonable restriction on the petitioner's right to carry on business under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. The court found that the provision was rationally connected to the object of the Act, which was to provide holidays for employees in shops.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 11 (1) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, XXXVI of 1947, is unconstitutional for being arbitrary and unreasonable. 2. Whether the provision is reasonably connected to the object of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Chintaman Rao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1951 SC 118, to determine the reasonableness of the restriction. The court held that the restriction was reasonable as it was rationally connected to the object of the Act, which was to provide holidays for employees in shops. The court also held that the restriction was not excessive, as it did not go beyond what was necessary to achieve the object of the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that Section 11 (1) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, XXXVI of 1947, was constitutional and a reasonable restriction on the petitioner's right to carry on business under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution.
( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition is by the Manager of a Hindu family firm known as Brothers Shops and Branch, which does business in Rajam, Srikakulam District. The family consists of seven brothers, who claim to he personally attending to their business, and six out of the brothers are still un-divided. They have a main shop which has two branches. In thy main shop as well as in one of its branches the six undivided brothers carry on retail business in a variety of goods including medicines. In the other branch the brother, who is the eldest and has separated, attends to the business in the footwear. Their case in the writ petition is that they do not employ any other person either in the main shop or in its branches, and that as soon as the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, XXXVI of 1947, came into force they declared Sundays as weekly holidays in respect of the main shop and the foot-wear branch shop, Saturdays being such holidays in respect of the other branch shops. It appears that the Assistant Labour Inspector of Srikakulam who has been impleaded as the respondent to the writ petition, had visited the main shop on 26/07/1958 and issued directions for its closure on the weekly holiday, The petitioner claims to have then protested on the grounds that there were no persons employed in the shop except the owners. It is further averred that they had pointed that the sale on that day was mainly of medicines; they having since 1951 obtained a drug licence for the two shops, excepting the footwear shop. Notwithstanding such protests the 1st respondent appears to have made a note in the visiting book that the shop was not to be kept opened on the weekly holiday. It is further alleged that the Labour Inspector had issued instructions to the Village Munsiff to watch the observance of the weekly holiday and to report breaches of the provisions of Section 11 (1) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act. The Village Munsiff had apprised the brothers of the instructions by the Labour Inspector, requested them to close the main shop on holidays and stated he. would otherwise make a report. A notice has also been served on the petitioner for having sold certain articles to two persons on Sunday, 24/08/1958, in contravention of Section 11 (1) of the Act. The writ petition challenges the constitutionality of Section 11 (1) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act on the ground that:-- 1. It contravenes the brothers fundamental right to carry on business, which is given to them by Article 19 (1) (g), and it imposes restrictions which are not reasonable.
( 2 ) THE Act, having been designed to regulate the conditions of work in shops, which have employees, travels beyond the scope and object of the statute by providing in the sub-section for total closure.
( 3 ) SECTION 11 (1) can have no application to shops without employees because of Section 4, but Section 45 (1) is wide enough to cover owners of such shops and to that extent Section 45 is ultra vires. There are two other grounds for quashing the notice. These are that:--
( 4 ) THERE is a Notification No. 97 in G. O. 226, Development dated December, 22, 1953, which exempts all shops from the provisions of the Act, wherein the owner and his family members alone participate in the business, and
( 5 ) THERE is exemption by the Government Notification for the shops that deal mainly in sale of medicines and as the main shop partly sells medicines, it should also be exempted, there being no reason why such a shop should be closed and the differentiation made in favour of shops wholly selling medicines being void under Article 14 due to the discrimination without rational classification. 2. At this stage the impugned provisions can be usefully extracted, which read as follows:--"11 (1) Every shop shall remain entirely closed on one day of the week, which day shall be specified by the shopkeeper in a notice permanently exhibited in a conspicuous place in the shop; and the day so sp
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
