http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: M.R.F.  LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: INSPECTOR KERALA GOVT.  AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       11/11/1998

BENCH: S. SAGHIR AHMAD, B.N. KIRPAL.

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. The classic Judgment of Patanjali Sastri, C.J.   "in State of Madras vs.   V.   G.  Row.  1952 SCR 597 = AIR 1952 SC 196, has again to be referred to and relied upon in  this case  to settle the controversy regarding the constitutional validity of the Kerala Industrial  Establishments  (National and  Festival  Holidays)  (Amendment)  Act, 1990 (for short, ’the Amending Act’.) which has  already  been  upheld  by  a Single  Judge,  and  in appeal, by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. By the Amending Act, national and festival holidays, fixed under the Principal Act, namely, the Kerala Industrial Establishments  (National  and  Festival Holidays) Act, 1958 (for short, ’the Parent Act’) were altered.    The  national holidays’  were  increased  from  three  to  four  (with the addition of 2nd of October as Mahatma Gandhi’s Birthday) and festival holidays were increased from four  to  nine.    The total  number  of  compulsory paid holidays were thus raised from seven to thirteen.  This alteration  was  challenge  by the appellants on the ground that the holidays, national and festival,  so  increased  were  violative of the Fundamental Right guaranteed to them under Article l9(i)(g) to carry  on their trade, business or profession.  It was also challenged en  the  ground  of arbitrariness as the contention was that the increase in the number of national and festival holidays was wholly arbitrary, without  there  being  any  reasonable basis  for  such increase which has compelled the appellants to pay to their labour and other employees salary  even  for closed days on which they do not work.         Article 19(1)(g) provides as under:         "19.    Protection   of   certain   rights         regarding  freedom of speech, etc.-(1) All         citizens shall have the right-         (a) ...................................         (b) ...................................         (c) ...................................         (d) ...................................         (e) ...................................         (f) ...................................

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

       (g)  to  practice  any  profession,  or to         carry  on   any   occupation,   trade   or         business."         Sub-clause (6) of this Article provides as         under:-         "(6) Nothing in sub-clause (g) of         the said clause shall affect the operation         of any  existing  law  in  so  far  as  it         imposes,  or prevent the State from making         any law imposing, in the interests of  the         general public, reasonable restrictions on         the exercise of the right conferred by the         said   sub-clause,   and,  in  particular,         nothing  in  the  said  sub-clause   shall         affect  the  operation of any existing law         in so far as it relates to, or prevent the         State from making any law relating to         (i) the professional or technical         qualifications  necessary  for  practising         any   profession   or   carrying   on  any         occupation, trade or business, or         (ii)   the  carrying  on  by  the         State,  or  by  a  corporation  owned   or         controlled  by  the  State,  of any trade,         business, industry or service, whether  to         the  exclusion,  complete  or  partial, of         citizens or otherwise." Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Article 19 are  the basic  and  natural Rights inherent in the citizen of a free country but none of the seven Rights, guaranteed by  Article 19(1),  is an absolute Right as each of the Rights is liable to be controlled, curtailed and regulated by  laws  made  by the State to the extent set out in Clauses (2) to (6) of the Article.   This  is based on the old principle enunciated by this.  Court ’that "LIBERTY has to be limited in order to be effectively possessed".    Article  19,   therefore,   while guaranteeing  some of the most valued elements of LIBERTY to every citizen, as Fundamental  Rights,  provides  for  their regulation for the common good by the State imposing certain restrictions on  their exercise. Article 19(1  )(g)  protects  the  freedom  of  each individual  citizen  to  practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business.  This is a right distinct from  Article  301  which  relates  to  trade,  commerce  or intercourse both with and within the State. As  pointed  out  earlier,  the  Right under Article 19M)(g)  is  not  absolute  in  terms  but  is  subject   to reasonable  restrictions contemplated by Clause (6) thereof. The test of reasonableness of restrictions was considered by this Court on several occasions but all  the  decisions  are not  being  referred to and only a few are mentioned to make out the focal point on the  basis  of  which  we  intend  to dispose of this case. We begin with an extract from, what is known as, the locus  classicus, written down by Patanjali Sastri, C.J., in the State of Madras vs.  V.  G.  Row:   1952  SCR  597  =AIR 1952 SC 196 :         "It is important in this context to  bear         in  mind  that the test of reasonableness,         wherever prescribed, should be applied  to         each  individual  statute impugned, and no         abstract standard, or general .   pattern,         of  reasonableness  can  be  laid  down-as         applicable to all cases.   The  nature  of         the  right alleged to have been infringed,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

       the underlying purpose of the restrictions         imposed, the extent  ana  urgency  of  the         evil  sought  to  be remedied thereby, the         disproportion  of  the   imposition,   the         prevailing  conditions  at the time should         all enter into the judicial verdict.    In         evaluating   such   elusive   factors  and         forming their own conception  of  what  is         reasonable  in  all the circumstances of a         given case,  it  is  inevitable  that  the         social  philosophy and the scale of values         of  the  judges   participating   in   the         decision  should  play  an important part,         and the limit to their  interference  with         Legislative  judgment  in  such  cases can         only  be  dictated  by  their   sense   of         responsibility  and self-restraint and the         sobering reflection that the  Constitution         is  meant not only for people of their way         of thinking but  for  all,  and  that  the         majority of the elected representatives of         the   people   have,  in  authorising  the         imposition of the restrictions, considered         them to be reasonable.  " This decision was followed  in  Mineral  Development Ltd.  vs.   State  of Bihar.  (1960) 2 SCR 609 = AIR 1960 SC 466, and it was laid down that the  principles  set  out  by Patanjali  Sastri,  C.J.,  have to be considered and kept in view by the Courts in deciding whether a particular  Statute satisfies’ the objective test of reasonableness. The observations of  Patanjali  Sastri,  C.J.,  were again approved In Collector of Customs, Madras vs.  Nathella Sampathu Chetty.    (1962)  3  SCR  786  =  AIR 1962 SC 316i Ayyangar, J.  who wrote the Judgment  observed  that  though there  were  several  decisions  of  this Court in which the relative criteria were laid down to test the  reasonableness of  the restrictions imposed under Clause (6) of Article 19, the passage from the Judgment of Patanjali Sastri, C.J.   in State of Madras  vs.    V.G.    Row  (supra),  which we have already extracted above, was held sufficient for the purpose of reference. These  decisions  were  considered,  discussed   and followed in M/s Laxmi  Khandsari  vs.    State  of U.  P.  & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 873 = 1981 (2) SCC 600. In  examining  the  reasonableness  of  a  statutory provision,  whether it is violative of the Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 19, one cannot lose  sight  of  the Directive Principles of State Policy contained in Chapter IV of the Constitution as was laid down by this Court in Saghir Ahmad vs.   State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC728 = (1955) 1 SCR 707 as also in Mohd.  Hanif Qureshi vs.  State of Bihar.    1959 SCR 629 = AIR 1958 SC 731. This   principle   was   also   followed   in  Laxmi Khandsari’s case (supra)  in  which  the  reasonableness  of restrictions  imposed  upon the fundamental Rights available under Article  19  was  examined  on  the  grounds,  amongst others,  that  they  were  not  violative  of  the Directive Principles of State Policy. On a conspectus of various decisions of this  Court, the following principles are clearly discernible         (1)  While  considering  the  reasonableness of the         restrictions, the Court has  to  keep  in  mind  the         Directive Principles of State Policy.         ’2)  Restrictions  must  not  be arbitrary or of an         excessive nature so as to go beyond the  requirement

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

       of the interest of the general public.         3)  In  order  to  judge  the reasonableness of the         restrictions, no abstract or general  pattern  or  a         fixed  principle  can  be  laid  down so as to be of         universal application and the same  will  vary  from         case  to  case  as  also  with  regard  to  changing         conditions, values of human life, social  philosophy         of  the  Constitution, prevailing conditions and the         surrounding circumstances.         (4) A  just.   balance has to be struck between the         restrictions  imposed   and   the   social   control         envisaged by clause (6) of Article 19.  .^-         (5) Prevailing social values as also social  needs         which  are  intended to be satisfied by restrictions         have to be borne in mind.  (See:  State of U.P.  vs.         Kaushailiys, (1964) 4 SCR 1002 = AIR 1964 Sp 416)         (6) There must be a direct and proximate nexus or a         reasonable   connection   between  the  restrictions         imposed and the object sought to be  achieved.    If         there  is  a  direct nexus between the restrictions,         and the object of the Act, then a strong presumption         in favour of the constitutionality of the  Act  will         naturally arise.   (See:    Kavalappara  Kottarathil         Kochuni @ Moopil Nayar vs.   States  of  Madras  and         Kerala.   (1960)  3 SCR 887 = AIR 1960 SC 1080; O.K.         Ghosh vs.  E.X.  Joseph.  (1963) Supp.  (1) SCR  789         = AIR 1963 SC 812) Having regard to what has been set out above, we may now   proceed   to   consider   the  reasonableness  of  the restrictions imposed in the instant, case on  the  right  of the appellants to carry on their trade or business. It may be mentioned  that  the  appellants  do  not. challenge the legislative competence, in enacting the law by which the Parent Act was amended.  What is contended is that in altering the number of national and festival holidays and raising  its  total number to thirteen from seven, the right to carry on trade and business on six  additional  days  has been  taken  away  causing  serious loss of production apart from heavy financial liability of making payment  of  salary or  wages  to  the employees and labour for the closed days. The restriction placed  on  this  right  for  keeping  their industries  closed  on national and festival holidays cannot be treated as reasonable within the meaning of Clause (6) of Article 19.  This, it is contended, is in  contravention  of the right guaranteed to them under Article 19(1)(g). The Directive Principles of  State  Policy  are  not enforceable   but   are   nevertheless  fundamental  in  the governance of the country and have  to  be  applied  by  the State in  making  the  laws.  They are essential articles of faith of the  country  and  as  such  the  Legislature,  the Executive and the Judiciary have to follow them unless there is  likely to be an infringement of any express provision of the Constitution.  They have to be regards as  the  "Wisdom" of  the  Nation  manifested  in  the  "paramount" law of the country. Article 43 of the Constitution provides as under :         "43.  Living wage, etc., for workers.-The         state   shall   endeavour  to  secure,  by         suitable    legislation    or     economic         organisation  or  in any other way, to all         workers,   agricultural,   industrial   or         otherwise, work, a living wage, conditions         of work ensuring a decent standard of life         and  full  enjoyment of leisure and social         and   cultural   opportunities   and,   in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

       particular,  the  State shall endeavour to         promote   cottage   industries    on    an         individual  or co-operative basis in rural         areas." This Article  enjoins  the  State  to  endeavour  to secure  to  all workers, be they agricultural, industrial or otherwise, a living wage and proper conditions of work so as to assure to  them  a  decent  standard  of  life  and  full enjoyment  of leisure and social and cultural opportunities. The idea, therefore,  is  that  the  workers  would  not  be compelled to  work  on  all days.  While other employees may enjoy national and festival  holidays,  the  workers  in  an industry  or  an  agricultural farm must work throughout and should not avail of any holiday is  not  the  philosophy  of Article 43.    As human beings they are entitled to a period of rest which would enable them to fully enjoy their leisure and participate in social and cultural activities.   It  was for this reason that this Court in Manohar Lal vs.  State of Punjab).   (1961)  2  SCR  343 = AIR 1961 SC 418, upheld the compulsory closure of shop on one day.   This  decision  was followed in Ramdhandas  vs.   State of Punjab.  (1962) 1 SCR 852 = AIR 1961 SC 1559 upholding the restriction  placed  on the opening  and  closing  hours  of  the  shop.  Both these decisions were followed in Collector of  Customs,.    Madras vs.   Nathella  Sampathu  Chetty, AIR 1962 SC 316 = (1962) 3 SCR 786.    These  decisions  were  treated  as  social  and industrial welfare  legislation.   On the principles of this philosophy, this Court has already upheld the provisions  of the  Industrial  Disputes  Act  in Niemla Textile Finish ins Mills Ltd.  vs.  2nd Punjab Tribunal.  AIR  1957  SC  329  = 1957 SCR 335;  Minimum  Wages Act in U.  Unichoyi vs.  State of Kerala.  (1962) 1 SCR 946 = AIR 1962 SC  12;  Payment  of Bonus Act in Jalan Trading Co.  Pvt.  Ltd.  vs.  P.M.  Aney. AIR  1979  SC  233  = 1979 (3) SCO 220 whereunder compulsory payment of minimum statutory bonus even in the years of loss was held to be valid and reasonable under Article  19(6)  of the Constitution. Coming  now to some decisions of the High Courts, we may mention that the Bombay High Court in  State  of  Bombay vs.  V.M.   Jawadekar, 62 Bombay Law Report 183, has already upheld the provisions of Section 9(1) of the C.P.   &  Berar Shops  and  Establishments  Act,  1947  (as amended in 1955) which provided for compulsory holidays for the employees and closing of shop.   The  Allahabad  High  Court  in  Matrumal Sharma and  another  vs.   The Chief Inspectors of Shops and Commercial Establishments, V.P.  Kanpur, AIR 1952  Allahabad 773, has  upheld  the  validity  of  the  U.P.    Shops  and Commercial Establishments Act.   The  provisions  of  Mysore Shops  and  Establishments  Act  were  upheld in BabaJan Mir Zahiruddin vs.  State  of  Mysore  and  another,  AIR  1957. Mysore  64; the provisions of Ajmer Shops and Establishments Act were upheld in Bhanwarlal  and  others  vs.    State  of Rajasthan   and   other,   AIR   1959   Rajasthan  257;  the restrictions placed under Madras  Shops  and  Establishments Act, 1947 were held to be reasonable in Sadasivam vs.  State of Madras,  AIR 1957 Madras 144.  So also the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Grandhi Mangaraju, Manager, Brothers Shop  and Branches, Rajam,  Srikakulam  District vs.  Assistant Labour Inspector.  Srikakulam and another, AIR 1959 A.P.  604 and a Full Bench of the Punjab  and  Haryana  High  Court  in  Ram Chander Baru  Ram  vs.   The State, AIR 1963 Punjab 148 have upheld their local laws dealing with  shops  and  commercial establishments. It  may  be  pointed out that the State of Kerala in its counter-affidavit pleaded that in order to introduce the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

amendments in the Parent Act by  which  the  number  of  the national   and   festival   holidays   were  increased,  the Government took into  consideration  the  change  in  social conditions,  the developments in the-State and the number 12 of holidays enjoyed by other sectors.  It was  pleaded  that the  outlook  towards  labour has undergone a drastic change since the  enactment  of  the  Parent  Act  in  1958.    The contention  of  the appellants that the increase in holidays would result in the loss Of production was  refuted  by  the State  on  the  ground that the power to Increase production required healthy labour force.   Some  recreation  and  rest would  make  the  labour more fit and capable of doing their work more efficiently and satisfactorily which would  result in more  production.    The  Kerala  Institute of Labour and Employment  had  already  made  a  study  of  paid  holidays available  to industrial workers in Kerala State in 1982 and after  studying  the  conditions  prevailing  in  about  one hundred   and   eighty   public   ’and   private  industrial establishments as to  the  national  and  festival  holidays available to  their  workers had published a report.  As per the analysis made in that report, it was  noticed  that  the number  of  paid holidays available to industrial workers in the public sector in Kerala ranged from seven to twenty  one days  and  in  private sector, from seven to seventeen days. It’ was also  noticed  that  the  Government  of  India  had declared  sixteen  holidays  while  Government of Kerala had declared eighteen holidays for  the  year  1990  which  were repeated in 1991. Having  regard  to  the  factors  enumerated  in the counter-affidavit as also to the  Directive  Principles  of State  Policy contained in Article 43, we are of the opinion that the Act by which the  national  and  festival  holidays have been Increased is fully constitutional ana does not, in any  way,  infringe  the right of the appellants to carry on their trade or business under Article 19(1  )  (g  ).    The compulsory closure of the industrial concern on national and festival holidays  cannot be treated as unreasonable.  It is protected by Clause (6) of Article 19 and, therefore, cannot be treated to be violative of the  Fundamental  Right  under Article 19(1)(g). The   plea   under   Article   14   also  cannot  be entertained.  The decision by legislative amendment to raise the national and festival holidays is  based  upon  relevant material  considered  by  the Government, including the fact that the holidays allowed  by  the  Central  Government  and other  public sector undertakings were far greater in number than those prescribed under the Act.  As pointed out earlier the Act is a  social  legislation  to  give  effect  to  the Directive  Principles  of State Policy contained in Article’ 43 of the Constitution.  The law so made cannot be  said  to be  arbitrary  nor can it be struck down for being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the  appellants  contended  that before raising the national and festival holidays from their original  number under the Parent Act, to the number of days contemplated by the Amending Act, the  industries  or  their representatives  should  have  been  given an opportunity of hearing.  This argument is wholly untenable.  Principles  of natural   justice  cannot  be  imported  in  the  matter  of ’legislative action.  If the Legislature, in exercise of its plenary  power  under  Article  245  of  the   Constitution, proceeds to enact a law, those who would be affected by that law cannot legally raise a grievance that before the law was made, they should have been given an opportunity of hearing. This principle may, in limited cases, be invoked  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

the  case  of  sub-ordinate  legislation Specially where the ’main  legislation  itself  lays  down   that   before   the sub-ordinate  legislation  is made, a public notice shall be given and objections shall be  invited  as  is  usually  the case, for  example, in the making of municipal byelaws.  But the  Principle  Of  Natural  Justice,’  including  right  of hearing,  cannot  be  invoked in the making of law either by the Parliament or by the State Legislature. No other  point  was  pressed  before   us.      We, consequently,  find  no  merit  in  this  appeal  which  "is dismissed but without any order as to costs.