P A PAUL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by seven petitioners.

(2.) THE Challenge in this petition is against the vires of the Punjab Shops and commercial Establishments Act (Act No. 15 of 1958)--hereinafter referred to as the Act. It is contended that the Act is ultra vires Article 19 of the Constitution of india, inasmuch as it places unreasonable restrictions on the medical profession and in the matter of employment of technical staff by the petitioners without which they cannot carry on their profession in all its practical aspects.

(3.) PETITIONER No. 1 is running a Nursing Home at Ambala City and is a surgeon also engaged in Gynaecology Obstetrics. He has in his employment one lady doctor, three nurses, two mid-wives, one laboratory and X ray technician, one ward bearer and two sweepers. The normal hours of this institution for running the out-door department are from 7. 30 a. m. to 1. 0 P. m. and from 4. 0 p. m. to 8. 0 p. m. This petitioner performs operations on four days in a week from 2-0 p. m. onwards and sometimes the operation may last as late as 7-0 p. m. After finishing the operation, the petitioner attends to his out-door patients for about 2 hours on these particular days. He has also to attend to maternity cases at all hours of the day and night depending when delivery is to take place. The nature of his work is such that he may not require the assistance of his attendance during the normal working hours, though his attendants have to be available during these hours, but may require their assistance beyond these hours in an emergency. It is for this reason that he has provided residential accommodation to his assistants within the premises of the Nursing Home. It is further alleged that it is not possible to have technical assistants in addition to what he has because such assistant are not easily available or rather there is an acute shortage of such assistants and that it will be very expensive to maintain a double staff with the result that it will be outside the reach of the common man to get efficient medical facilities. The petitioner is one of the essential services and in the interest of general public it is claimed that the restrictions placed on him or on his assistants in carrying on his profession are such as would cause more harm to the general public and also are not in consonance with medical ethics and the peculiar requirements and objectives of his profession.