LIPTON INDIA LIMITED Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVT EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL WELFARE LABOUR I ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions have been placed before this Special Bench of five Judges on an order of reference made by a Division Bench consisting of Alladi Kuppuswami and Punnayya, JJ., as the learned Judges felt that, in view of Art. 228-A (3) of the Constitution of India, as inserted by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, the minimum number of Judges, who have to sit for the purpose of determining any question as to the constitutional validity of any State Law must be five.

(2.) The petitioners in both these writ petitions challenge the constitutional validity of S. 2, sub-s. (21) of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, as amended by the Andhra Pradesh Act 2 of 1969. The alternative contention on behalf of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that, even if it were to be held that S. 2, sub-s. (21) of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act is valid, the notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on Aug. 31, 1972 is invalid. By virtue of the definition in Cl. (26-A) of Art. 366 of the Constitution, State Law means any notification, order, scheme, rule, regulation or bye-law or any other instrument having the force of law made under any Act, Ordinance or provisions referred to in sub-cl. (a), sub-cl. (b), sub-cl. (c) or sub-cl. (d) and sub-cl. (a) of Cl. (26-A) defines State Law to mean a State Act or an Act of the Legislature of a Union territory. Under these circumstances, even the notification issued by the State Government, which has the force of law and which has been made under the powers conferred upon the State Government by S. 2 (21) of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, would also be a State law under Art. 228-A (3) of the Constitution; the minimum number of Judges, who shall sit for the purpose of determining any question as to the constitutional validity of any State law has to be five. The proviso to cl. (3) of Art. 228-A does not apply to this High Court, since there are more than five Judges in this Court.

(3.) The facts in both these cases are more or less similar. In Writ Petition No. 358 of 1975, the 1st petitioner is Lipton (India) Limited, a company incorporated under the English Companies Act, having its Head-office for India at Calcutta. It has a branch office at Nagpur. The 2nd petitioner is the Branch Manager of the 1st petitioner-company at Madras. The 1st petitioner-company carries on the business of blending, packing and selling tea under its own brand and name all over India. It has branch offices in India at Delhi, Bombay, Madras, Calcutta, Nagpur and Ahmedabad. The blending and packing of tea is done in the factories situated at Calcutta and madras. Throughout the country, the 1st petitioner-company has its own depots where stocks of tea are stored. The depots situated in Andhra Pradesh numbering about 137 are partly under the administrative control of the Nagpur Branch Office and partly under the administrative control of the madras Branch Office. The depots in the Telangana region of Andhra Pradesh are under the administrative control of the Nagpur Branch Office and the depots in the Andhra region of the State of Andhra Pradesh are under the administrative control of the Madras Branch Office. Each of these 137 depots is in charge of a salesman employed by the 1st petitioner-company.