HOTEL AND RESTAURANT Vs. ASSTT LABOUR COMMISSIONER JORHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common question of law did arise in all these five Civil Rules and therefore all the cases were taken up for hearing together.

(2.) The Assam Shops and Establishment (Amendment) Rules.1990 was notified vide a notification dated 5.9.90 published in the Assam Gazette Extra Ordinary issue on 10.9.90 by the State amending the Schedule-I in respect of fee for certificate, registration, renewal of registration, issue of duplicate certificate of registration and for notice of charge and substituting the same in the following manner: "...3. In the principal rules for Schedule-I the follwoing Schedule shall be substituted namely : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_629_GAULT2_1997Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) The legality and validity of the said proviso is assailed in this proceeding. Mr. B. K. Das, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. D. Mazumdar questioned the rationality of the increase and submitted that the said hike is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Das further submitted that since the legislature levied fee, there must have some co-relation between the levy in question and the service so far rendered,. Mr. K. K. Manama, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in Civil Rule No. 2378/91 and 2380/91 submitted that though it may not be necessary to establish the element of quid pro quo between the service and the levy with the arithmatical exactitude but the amount of fee that is realised it; required to be shown with reasonable certainity as being spent for rendering services. According to Mr. Das as well as Mr. Mahanta, the levy in fact amounted to taxation in the garb of fee for raising of public revenue. The learned counsel in support of their argument referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in (Kewal Krishan Puri Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in AIR 1980 SC 1008 and Secretary to the Govt. of Madras and another Vs. P. K. Sriramulu and another reported in 1996 1 SCC 345. Mr. A.C. Bora, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri H. N. Sarma.Additional Sr. Govt. Advocate and Sri Sanjoy Hazarika, Advocate, Assam on the other hand refuted the contention of the petitioners and submitted that the impugned action related to the legislative area of the State and the Courts are required to give due weightage to the legislative wisdom. The learned Additional Advocate General drew my attention to the provision of the Assam Shops and Establishment Act, 1948 and the Rules framed thereunder, as well as 1971 Act and more particularly to the amended provision of the Rules. The Act is beneficial in nature to ameliorate the condition of work and employment of shops and commercial establishment etc. and the working force of the authority was required to be increased for enforcement of the provision of the Act. The levy was required to be imposed for increasing the efficiency in service subbmitted, the learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam. The Schedule was amended after about 14 years and (he rate of increase, according to the learned Addl. Advocate General is marginal in nature. Anelement of quid pro quo in strict the sense is not always an essentila characteristic for fee what is required is only a reasonable relationship between the levy of fee and the service. The Assam Shops Act, 1971 was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the regulation and condition of work and employment of shops and commercial establishment of public entertainment or amusement in the State of Assam. Basically, it is an Act to regulate the condition of the work and employment in the Shops, establishments etc. Initially there was no provision for collection of realisation of fee certificate, registration, renewal of registration issue of duplicate certificate or registration etc. later on provisions were inserted in the act for realisation of fee payable for registration or renewal etc. The Act regulates the hour of work, health, safety and employment of children and women in shops and other establishment, It has also provided the procedure of enforcement of inspection, it-fined offences, penalties and procedure and the measur for punishment under Chapter - VIII of the Act. In exercise of power conferred Under Section 34 of the Act the State Govt. made a previous publication in the Assam Gazette for information of all persons likely to.be affected thereby notifying the said draft which would be taken up for consideration after expiration of 30 days of the inviting objections, suggestions in the official gazette. By the said notification, the State GOVt also incorporated the proposal for substitution of Schedule-I showing the fee for certificate of registration, renewal of registration, issue of duplicate certificate of registration and notice of charges which are quoted below : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_629_GAULT2_1997Html2.htm</FRM> The State Govt. received objection from certain quarters and after considering the objections and suggestions made the impugned amendment which is already described.