RAJKUMARSINGH Vs. AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by the Managing Director of the company named Sir Sarupchand Hukum-chand (Private) Ltd., under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is directed against the Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Madhya Pradesh and Additional Inspector of Factories both of Ujjain.

(2.) The only question raised in this petition is as regards the vires of the Provisions, which were initially brought into force by means of the Ordinance No. IV of 1957 dated 27-4-1957 issued by the President of India, giving them retrospective effect from 1-12-1956 and which later were enacted by the Parliament and became a part of the Provisions of Industrial Disputes Act as Section 25FFF. The said Provision is as follows:

(3.) The circumstances leading up to this petition arc as follows: The Industrial concern aforesaid conducted and carried on, among other things, a business of manufacturing Safety Razor Blades at Ujjain, The business was run in the name of 'Vidyut Metallics'. The case of the petitioner is that the said Industrial venture had been running into continuous and heavy losses since its inception so that it had become quite uneconomic to carry it on and the management therefore decided to close it, down permanently to save the said company from further, losses and a notice was given to its workers on 1-3-1957 that the business would be closed down permanently from 1-5-1957, This was accordingly done. During the interval between the date of notice and the date fixed for closure of date industry the President issued the Ordinance aforesaid giving it a retrospective operation as from 1-12-1956. Now on closure of the business the Divisional La-hour Inspector gave a notice to the petitioner by his letter dated 22-5-1957 that the compensation in terms of the Ordinance aforesaid would have to be paid to the workmen who had been employed in the concern on the date of its closure. The petitioner thereupon suggested that the question regarding the validity of the provision was being considered by the Supreme Court and that until the matter was decided by the said Court the demand ought not to be pressed. This was not accepted by the Officer named, above and an application under Section 15 (3) of the Payment of Wages Act was moved before the appropriate authority-It was upon that the present petition was moved on the grounds that: 1. Section 25FFF, which replaced the Ordinance aforesaid places an unreasonable restriction upon the fundamental right of the company, guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution, to carry on any business; this right to carry on any business, it is said, includes a right to close down any uneconomic undertaking. The said provision is not saved by Article 19(6) of the Constitution as it places unreasonable restriction upon the right aforesaid and is not in public interest. Section 25FFF contravenes Article 14 of the Constitution.