IMT INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
LAWS(P&H)-2023-11-3
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on
November 17,2023
Imt Industrial Association
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STAR INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]A K GOPALAN VS. STATE OF MADRAS OPPOSITE PARTY; UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
D P JOSHI VS. STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT [REFERRED TO]
EXPRESS NEWSPAPER PRIVATE LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SAKAL PAPERS PRIVATE LIMITED B N SARPOTDAR SHANTILAL HARJIVAN SHAH PRINTERS MYSORE PRIVATE LIMITED LABCHAND B N SARPOTDAR FIRM "TAMIL NADU AND D S POTNIS INTERVENERS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
CALCUTTA GAS COMPANY PROPRIETARY LIMITED VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER:ASST SUPDT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES BIHAR:COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER:COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER:COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER:COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
BRITISH INDIA STEAM NAVIGATION CO LIMITED EVERETT ORIENT LINE INCORPORATED EVERETT ORIENT LINE INCORPORATED EVERETT ORIENT LINE INCORPORATED EVERETT ORIENT LINE INCORPORATED SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED VS. JASJIT SINGH ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS CALCUTTA:S VENKATESAN ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS CALCUTTA:JASJIT SINGH ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS CALCUTTA:THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS CALCUTTA:S VENKATESAN A [REFERRED TO]
TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE CO LIMITED AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTS OF INDIA STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED VS. STATE OF BIHAR MOHD SHARFUDDIN SALES TAX OFFICER BOMBAY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
A V S NARASIMHA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RUSTOM CAVASJEE COOPER RUSTOM CAVASJEE COOPER T M GURUBUXANI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY THE HINDUSTAN TIMES LIMITED INDIAN EXPRESS MADURAI PRIVATE LIMITED G NARASIMHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST VS. VITHAL RAO [REFERRED TO]
HIS HOLINESS KESAVANANDA BHARATI SRIPADAGALVARU SHRI RAGHUNATH RAO GANPAT RAO N H NAWAB MOHAMMAD IFTIKHAR ALI KHAN SHETHIA MINING AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION LIMITED THE ORIENTAL GOAL GO LIMITED VS. STATE OF KERALA:UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MINERVA MILLS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
A K ROY THAN SINGH TYAGI DR VASANTKUMAR PANDIT VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
HOECHST PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED JUMNA FLOUR AND OIL MILLS PHARMA ASSOCIATES VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS COMPANY LIMITED ARVIND MILLS LIMITED MADHUSUDAN VEGETABLE PRODUCTS CO LIMITED MODI SPINNING AND WVG MILLS CO LIMITED GOETZE INDIA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP JAIN MISS REITA NIRANKARI MEENAKSHI ALKA AGGARWAL SHALINI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
AELTEMESH REIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
S P CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU VS. JAGANNATH [REFERRED TO]
KARTAR SINGH KRIPA SHANKAR RAI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
JILUBHAI NANBHAI KHACHAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. P B VIJAYAKUMAR [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. GAJANAN MAHARAJ SANSTHAN [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SHAH GOVERDHAN L KABRA TEACHERS COLLEGE [REFERRED TO]
COMMON CAUSE VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SAURABH CHAUDRI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
P A INAMDAR VS. SATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
KULDIP NAYAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
M NAGARAJ VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
I R COELHO VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
PRESTIGE LIGHTS LTD VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
TATA POWER COMPANY LTD VS. RELIANCE ENERGY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. K SHYAM SUNDER [REFERRED TO]
PRAMATI EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL TRUST VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ NARULA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (READ.) VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR VS. UNION OF INDIA THR SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
G.S.SANDHAWALIA,J. -
(1.)The present judgment shall dispose of 9 cases i.e. CWP Nos. 26573, 24967, 25037, 25539 and 25988 of 2021 and CWP Nos.584, 1404, 3860 and 1698 of 2022. Facts have been taken from CWP-26573-2021, IMT Industrial Association and another vs. State of Haryana and another, CWP No. 24967 of 2022, Faridabad Industries Association vs. State of Haryana and another and CWP-1698-2022, Akhilesh Leekha vs. State of Haryana and another since purely a legal question is involved in this batch of cases regarding the vires of The Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020 (in short 'the 2020 Act') and whether the same is unconstitutional and violative of Part-III of the Constitution of India.
(2.)The petitioners' Association is stated to be duly registered under the provisions of Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012 comprising of allottees of industrial plots/sites at Industrial Model Township, Tehsil Manesar, District Gurugram who are carrying on their industrial and business activities in the State of Haryana. The resolutions in favour of the authorized representatives have been duly appended.
(3.)The petitioners lay challenge to 'the 2020 Act' on account of the fact that it provides reservation in private employment and creates an unprecedented intrusion by the State Government into the fundamental rights of the private employers to carry on their business and trade as provided under Article 19 of Constitution of India. The restrictions thus placed upon the rights of the petitioners are alleged not to be reasonable and are manifestly arbitrary, capricious, excessive and uncalled for and the same being violative of the principles of natural justice, equality, liberty and fraternity laid down in the Preamble of the Constitution of India and is subject to challenge. Similarly, infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is also alleged in as much as all citizens of the country would have a right to equal employment, to reside and to settle in the State of Haryana and the Act, thus, represents a serious assault on the unity and integrity of the country and the idea of a common Indian identity. It has been averred that a fundamental wedge is sought to be created between persons domiciled in different States by the Statue in question which is contrary to the concept of common citizenship provided in the Constitution of India. The entire aim and objectives of the Act was alleged to be incorrect, misconceived, fanciful and granting overly broad discretion to the authorized officers appointed thereunder apart from the averments that the Haryana State lacked the legislative competence to pass the same and it being in the domain of the central legislative and, thus, fell foul of Article 246 of the Constitution of India.
Pleadings of State of Haryana
(2.)The petitioners' Association is stated to be duly registered under the provisions of Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012 comprising of allottees of industrial plots/sites at Industrial Model Township, Tehsil Manesar, District Gurugram who are carrying on their industrial and business activities in the State of Haryana. The resolutions in favour of the authorized representatives have been duly appended.
(3.)The petitioners lay challenge to 'the 2020 Act' on account of the fact that it provides reservation in private employment and creates an unprecedented intrusion by the State Government into the fundamental rights of the private employers to carry on their business and trade as provided under Article 19 of Constitution of India. The restrictions thus placed upon the rights of the petitioners are alleged not to be reasonable and are manifestly arbitrary, capricious, excessive and uncalled for and the same being violative of the principles of natural justice, equality, liberty and fraternity laid down in the Preamble of the Constitution of India and is subject to challenge. Similarly, infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is also alleged in as much as all citizens of the country would have a right to equal employment, to reside and to settle in the State of Haryana and the Act, thus, represents a serious assault on the unity and integrity of the country and the idea of a common Indian identity. It has been averred that a fundamental wedge is sought to be created between persons domiciled in different States by the Statue in question which is contrary to the concept of common citizenship provided in the Constitution of India. The entire aim and objectives of the Act was alleged to be incorrect, misconceived, fanciful and granting overly broad discretion to the authorized officers appointed thereunder apart from the averments that the Haryana State lacked the legislative competence to pass the same and it being in the domain of the central legislative and, thus, fell foul of Article 246 of the Constitution of India.
Pleadings of State of Haryana
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.