Provisions requiring mere one-year service for gratuity violate constitutional rights and create unreasonable discrimination, undermining principles of long and meritorious service in gratuity entitlement.

1This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court, whereby, S.47(3) and 47(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Shops &Establishments Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Shops Act') are declared unconstitutional, discriminatory and violative of the Art.14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India . Following facts would be necessary to understand the controversy.

2. Respondent No. 1 M/s. Srinivasa Resorts Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Companies Act , while the respondent No. 2 is as hare holder of the said company. Respondent No. 1 company is engaged in business of managing and running hotels. They have hotel in the name and style of "ITC Kakatiya Sheraton", which is being run by the ITC Hotels Ltd., which is another company incorporated under the Companies Act . The said hotel is registered under the provisions of the Shops Act. The appellant is the Union of employees and workers of the said hotel. Assistant Labour Officer, respondent No. 4 herein, visited the hotel at the instance of the appellant Union on 31.5.2001 and as required by him, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 furnished information regarding the employees, who had left the service of the hotel during last 2-3 years, as also the amounts paid to them towards full and final settlement of the dues. The respondent company, by letter dated 6.8.2001, also furnished the receipts signed by the employees who had left the hotel in token of the amounts received by them.
It seems that, thereafter, there was lot of correspondence between the respondent No. 1 company and respondent No. 4 Assistant Labour Officer on the issue, whereby, the Assistant Labour Officer was insisting upon the respondent Company to furnish the final settlement statements of the employees, who had left the service of the hotel, in order to know whether any service compensation had been paid to them or not in accordance with the provisions of the Shops Act. It was pleaded by the respondent company that no further documents except those which were already produced, were available with them. However, the Assistant Labour Officer, by his letter dated 7.8.2001, called upon the respondent company to show cause as to why penal action should not be taken under S.16(3) of the Act for failure to furnish the required documents. It is at this juncture that a Writ Petition came to be filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein, whereby, constitutional validity of the provisions of S.47(3) and 47(4) of the Shops Act in question, was challenged on the ground that they are illegal, invalid, inoperative and unsustainable in law and violative of Art.13, 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India . Since the action against the respondent company was initiated by the appellant Grand Kakatiya Sheraton Hotel & Towers Employees & Workers Union (hereinafter referred to as 'the Union' for short), the said Union joined as a party, as the respondent No. 3 to the Writ Petition. An injunction was also sought for against the concerned authorities under the Act and more particularly, the State Government and the Assistant Labour Officer, restraining them from inferring the provisions of S.47(3) and 47(4) of the Shops Act against the respondent company. This Writ Petition was allowed by the High Court, whereby, the High Court declared the two aforementioned provisions as unco