( 1 ) IN these two petitions the petitioners challenge the vires of the provisions of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act 1966 hereinafter referred to as the Act. Although the first petition was intended to be filed as the representative petition by the Association no permission under O. 1. R. 8 was ultimately obtained. Therefore both the petitions are filed by the individual employers. There is no dispute that all these employers are employing workers for the manufacture of Beedi either on their premises or they employ home workers. The existing employment in the present cases is not through contract labour but those provisions are challenged as the Act covers within its scope even the contract labour which would be getting the same conditions of employment as prescribed by the Act. In the beginning various points were sought to be raised in these petitions but ultimately the challenge on the ground that there is a violation of the guarantee of free inter state trade and commerce under Article 301 and as to the vires of sec. 3 and as to the vires of the various provisions which have extended the benefits of other Acts by a process of incorporation by reference has been given up at the time of hearing. Both the petitions therefore now challenge the provisions of the Act on the following three grounds:- (1) GROUND-A :- That the Parliament has no legislative competence to enact this Act as in pith and substance the matter falls under Entry 24 in the State List II; and that the Parliament has also perpetrated a fraud on the Constitution by introducing an artificial concept of employer - employee relationship to bring that Act under Entries 22 to 24 in the Concurrent List III. (2) GROUND-B :- That the restrictions imposed by the Act violate the freedom of trade and business guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) particularly as the Act has been applied irrespective of the number of the employees and as there is artificial concept of employment which includes even contract labour and home workers and as it imposes unbearable burdens in such cases where the employer had no master and servant relationship at all and could not effectively control the independent contractors or the home workers who had merely taken raw materials for work at their homes. (3) GROUND-C :- That sec. 4 is hit by Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) which imposes conditions which are arbitrary excessive extraneous vague and unintelligible and particularly Rule 3 (4) also suffers from the same defect of excessive delegation. (i) Historical background ad the Scheme of the Act:- 2 Before we consider these grounds of attack it would be proper at the outset to consider the historical background of or the circumstances prevailing in this Beedi industry to find out the mischief which was intended to be prevented and the remedy which was sought to be advanced by the Legislature for regulating the conditions of employment in the Beedi and Cigar establishments. This historical background has been elaborately discussed in Bhikhusha Yamasha Kshatriya Private Ltd. v. Union of India A. I. R. 1963 S. C. 1591. Their Lordships pointed out at page 1595 that in 1929 a Royal (Commission of Labour in India was appointed to make a detailed investigation into labour problems. The commission investigated into the conditions in various industries including the Beedi making industry and submitted its report in June 1931 revealing the deplorable state of affairs which prevailed in this industry. As mentioned in the said report the Commission had at that time recommended enactment of a separate Act for these Beedi workers. Even the Labour Investigation Committee appointed in February 1944 to investigate conditions of employment in respect of various industries including the conditions of workmen in Beedi Cigar and Cigarette industry found that the working conditions in the Beedi industry had remained the same. The prominent features of the Beedi and Cigar indus