M.R.F. LTD. versus INSPECTOR KERALA GOVT. AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 632 · Decided: 11-11-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
M.R.F. LTD. 
v. 
INSPECTOR KERALA GOVT. AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 11, 1998 
c 
B 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] 
Kera/a Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) 
(Amendment) Act, 1990-National and Festival Holidays of Industrial 
c 
concerns- Increased from seven to thirteen-Challenged on the ground that 
it in.fringes the right to carry on trade and business-High Court held the 
Amendment valid-On appeal, held, no infringement of right to carry on 
trade or business-Hence not violative of Article 14 and 19(/)(g) of the 
Constitution. 
D 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14 and 19(/)(g)-Kerala Industrial 
Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) (Amendment) Act, 1990-
validity of-Held, not violative of Article 14 and 19(/)(g) of the Constitution. 
By the Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) 
(Amendment) Act, 1990 National and Festival Holidays oflndustrial concerns 
E 
in the State were increased from seven to thirteen. This was unsucessfully 
challenged by the appellants before the High Court on the ground that it was 
violative of Articles 19(l)(g) and 14 of the Constitution. The Division Bench 
of the High Court also upheld the amendments. Hence the present appeal. 
The contention of the appellant was that by altering the number of 
F 
national and festival holidays and raising its total number to thirteen the 
right to carry on trade and business on six additional days has been taken 
away causing serious loss of production and heavy financial liability of 
making payment of wages to the employees for the closed days; Thus it was 
in contravention of the rights guaranteed under Article 19(l)(g) and Article 
14 of the Constitution. It was also contented that before raising the national 
G and festival holidays the industries or their representatives should have been 
t
given an opportunity of hearing. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival 
H 
Holidays) (Amendment) Act, 1990 by which the national and festival holidays 
632 
-
M.R.F. LTD. v. INSPECTOR KERALA GOVT. AND ORS. 
633 
have been increased is fully constitutional and does not, in any way, infringe A 
the right of the appellants to carry on their trade or business under Article 
19(l)(g). The compulsory closure orthe industrial concerns on national and 
festival holidays cannot be treated as unreasonable. It is protected by Clause 
(6) of Article 19 and, therefore, cannot be treated to be violative of the 
Fundamental Right under Article 19(l)(g). [641-C) 
B 
2. The decision by legislative amendment to raise the national and 
festival holidays is based upon relevant material considered by the 
Government, including the fact that the holidays allowed by the Central 
Government and other public sector undertakings were far greater in number 
than those prescribed under the Act. The Act is a social legislation to give C 
effect to the Directive Principles of State Policy contained in Article 43 of 
the Constitution. The law so made cannot be said to be arbitrary nor could 
it be struck down as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 
[641-D-E] 
State of Madras v. V.G. Row, [1952] SCR S97=AIR (1952) SC 196, D 
relied on. 
Mineral Deve/pomrmt Ltd. v. State of Bihar, [1960) 2 SCR 609 =Am 
(1960) SC 468; Collector of Customs, Madras v. Nathe/la Sampathu Chetty, 
[1962) 3 SCR 786 =AIR (1962) SC 316; Mis Laxmi Khandsari v. State of 
U.P. & Ors., AIR (1981) SC 873 = (1981) 2 SCC 600. Saghir Ahmadv. State E 
of UP., AIR (1954) SC 728 = (1955) 1 SCR 707; Mohd. HanifQureshi v. 
State of Bihar, [1959) SCR 629 = AIR (1958) SC 731; State of U.P. v. 
Kaushai/iya, (1964) 4 SCR 1002 = AIR (1964) SC 416; Kava/appara 
Kottarathil Kochuni @ Moopil Nayar v. States of Madras and Kera/a, 
(1960) 3 SCR 887 =AIR (1960) SC 1080; O.K. Ghosh v. E.X. Joseph, [1963) 
Supp. 1 SCR 789 = AIR (1963) SC 812; Manohar Lal v. State of Punjab, F 
(1961) 2 SCR 343 =AIR (1961) SC 418; Ramdhandas v. State of Punjab, 
(1962) 1 SCR 852 = AIR (1961) SC 1559; Niemla Textile Finishing Mills 
Ltd v. 2nd Punjab Tribunal, AIR (1957) SC 329 =(1957) SCR 335; U. 
Unichoyi v. State of Kera/a, [1962) 1 SCR 946 =AIR (1962) SC 12; Ja/an 
Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd v. D.M Aney, AIR (1979) SC 233 = (1979) 3 SCC 220; G 
State of Bombay v. V.M Jawadekar, 62 Bombay Law Report 183; Matrumal 
Sharma and Anr. v. The Chief Inspector! 
Shops and Commercial 
Establishments, V.P. Kanpur, AIR (195
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.