(1.) THESE are tea petitions filed by various types of persons connected with the beedi industry who could be described in the language of the impugned Act as principal employers, contractors and employees. For the various reasons detailed in the petitions, all of them seek a writ of mandamus prohibiting the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 from giving effect to the provisions of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 (No. 32 of 1966) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and further seek a declaration that the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder are void, ineffective and beyond the legislative competence of the Legislature and interfering unreasonably with fundamental rights of the petitioners.
(2.) OUT of these petitioners, the petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos. 391. 392, 393 of 1969, No. 409 of 1968, and Nos. 451 and 453 of 1969, as also those in Special Civil Applications Nos. 513 and 514 of 1069 are the beedi manufacturers who could be appropriately described as principal employers in the language of the Act; the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 410 of 1968 is a contractor, and the petitioner in Special Civil Application No, 411 of 1968 is an employee.
(3.) THE provisions of the Act are impugned mainly on two grounds. It is urged that there was no legislative competence in Parliament in the matter of enacting this law and it is also urged that its provisions interfere with the freedom of contract and trade of the petitioners in a manner which is beyond the scope permitted by the reasonable restrictions in Clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution. It is also argued that assuming that the restrictions were to be considered as reasonable they are not in the interests of the general public. A faint attack is also made on the ground of infringement of Article 14, inasmuch as the provisions of the Act are styled as arbitrary, unreasonable, oppressive and discriminatory.