The legislative competence of Parliament to enact laws regulating the welfare of labour, including conditions of work, and the reasonableness of restrictions imposed by such laws on the fundamental rights of citizens.

Deshmukh, J.

1. These are tea petitions filed by various types of persons connected with the beedi industry who could be described in the language of the impugned Act as principal employers, contractors and employees. For the various reasons detailed in the petitions, all of them seek a writ of mandamus prohibiting the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 from giving effect to the provisions of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 (No. 32 of 1966) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and further seek a declaration that the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder are void, ineffective and beyond the legislative competence of the Legislature and interfering unreasonably with fundamental rights of the petitioners.

2. Out of these petitioners, the petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos. 391. 392, 393 of 1969, No. 409 of 1968, and Nos. 451 and 453 of 1969, as also those in Special Civil Applications Nos. 513 and 514 of 1069 are the beedi manufacturers who could be appropriately described as principal employers in the language of the Act; the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 410 of 1968 is a contractor, and the petitioner in Special Civil Application No, 411 of 1968 is an employee.

3. The provisions of the Act are impugned mainly on two grounds. It is urged that there was no legislative competence in Parliament in the matter of enacting this law and it is also urged that its provisions interfere with the freedom of contract and trade of the petitioners in a manner which is beyond the scope permitted by the reasonable restrictions in Clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution. It is also argued that assuming that the restrictions were to be considered as reasonable they are not in the interests of the general public. A faint attack is also made on the ground of infringement of Article 14, inasmuch as the provisions of the Act are styled as arbitrary, unreasonable, oppressive and discriminatory.

4. Before we go to the provisions of the Act and the attack of the petitioners against the general or specific provisions thereof, it may be noted that there seems to be a long history behind the dispute between the beedi manufacturers and the workers who arc employed in this industry. The attempts made by the authorities till now to give some benefit to the workers of this industry have proved abortive. This measure on an all India basis is therefore enacted with a view to provide for the welfare of the workers in the beedi and cigar establishments and to regulate the conditions of their work and for other matters connected therewith. This being so, it would be necessary, in our view, to make a brief resume of the history or this dispute, as also to notice the peculiar working conditions that seem to exist in this industry, for the purpose of understanding the provisions of the Act, as also the attack that is made against it. The history relating to the dispute, as also the facts that constitute the present nature of the working of that Industry, have to be gathered from judicial decisions. So far as the pleadings are concerned, they were not particularly helpful from that point of view. When arguments progressed in that behalf it was conceded at the Bar that the prior history relevant to the background of this litigation and the provisions relating to the welfare of beedi workers may be gathered from judicial decisions. At a later stage, the learned Assistant Government Pleader made available to us a report of the Minimum Wages Committee appointed by the Government of Maharashtra for inquiring into the conditions of employment in any tobacco manufactory including beedi-making. This was a tripartite Committee in which the manufacturers, the labour and the State were represented.

5. Though beedi industry may exist all over this country, it seems to be in existence on a very large scale in the States of Madras, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. So far as the actual process of manuf