LAWS(SC)-1960-11-21

MANOHAR LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On November 11, 1960
MANOHAR LAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal on a certificate under Arts. 132 and 134(1) of the Constitution granted by the High Court of Punjab raises for consideration the constitutionality of S. 7(1) of the Punjab Trade Employees Act, 1940.

(2.) THE appellant-Manohar Lal-has a shop at Ferozepore Cantt. in which business is carried on under the name and style of 'Imperial Book Depot'. S. 7 of the Punjab Trade Employees Act, 1940 (hereinafter called the Act), enacts :

(3.) IT will be seen that while under sub-cl. (4) employers are injuncted from employing persons who had already worked for the maximum number of permitted hours in another establishment, sub-cl. (5) lays an embargo on the worker himself from injuring his health by overwork in an endeavour to earn more. From this it would be apparent that the Act is concerned-and properly concerned-with the welfare of the worker and seeks to prevent injury to it, not merely from the action of the employer but from his own. In other words, the worker is prevented from attempting to earn more wages by working longer hours than is good for him. If such a condition is necessary or proper in the case of a worker, there does not seem to be anything unreasonable in applying the same or similar principles to the employer who works on his own business. The learned Judges of the High Court have rested their decision on this part of the case on the reasoning that the terms of the impugned section might be justified on the ground that it is designed in the interest of the owner of the shop or establishment himself and that his health and welfare is a matter of interest not only to himself but to the general public. The legislation is in effect the exercise of social control over the manner in which business should be carried on-regulated in the interests of the health and welfare not merely of those employed in it but of all those engaged in it. A restriction imposed with a view to secure this purpose would, in our opinion, be clearly saved by Art. 19(6).