BABAJAN Vs. STATE OF MYSORE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
STATE OF MYSORE,INSPECTOR OF SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS, BANGALOEE CITY AREA
Click here to view full judgement.
NITTOOR SREENIVASA RAU, J. -
(1.)The Petitioner has been prosecuted for an offence under Section 11 (1) read with Section 45 of the Mysore Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 on the ground that he was found carrying on business in his cycle shop on a declared weekly holiday. He has filed this writ petition for quashing the entire proceedings on the ground that the said provision, i.e., Section 11 (1) of the Act is wholly void. He has also urged that Section 6 of the Act which enables Government by notification to exempt either permanently or for any specified period, any establishment or class of establishments, or person or class of persons, from all or any of the provisions of this Act, subject to such conditions as the Government deem fit, is void as it is arbitrary and discriminatory and does not contain within itself any criteria for such exemption. The latter question however does not arise for consideration in this petition since it is not the Petitioner's case that he applied for exemption and was refused such exemption. The attack against the constitutionality of Section 11 (1) is on the ground that it offends Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution inasmuch as it comes in the way of his exercising his profession or carrying on his occupation, trade or business. He further contends that it is against public interest inasmuch as his profession or trade is in the nature of public utility service.
(2.)It appears to us that there is no substance in the petition for Article 19 (1) (g) has to be read along with Article 19 (6) since it enables the State to make any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions' on the exercise of the right conferred by Article 19 (1) (g). Section 11 (1) of the Mysore Shops and Establishments Act like some other provisions of the Act is intended to regulate conditions of work in shops and commercial establishments which necessarily includes the safeguarding of the interests of employees and other similar establishments. The Petitioner himself admits that in addition to himself and the other members of his family there are employees working in his establishment. A weekly holiday on a definite day in the week is calculated to secure reasonable conditions for employees. It cannot therefore be said that Section 11 (1) of the Act is unconstitutional.
(3.)In the course of arguments it was brought to our notice that the Central Enactment, the Weekly Holidays Act, 1942, deals with some matters including those dealt with under the Mysore Shops and Establishments Act and that to that extent the latter Act has become inoperative. That, however, is not a matter urged in this petition and does not arise for consideration.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.