MANOHAR LAL versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1961] 2 S.C.R. 343 · Decided: 11-11-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

2 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
343 
provisions of cl. (b) of s. 3 it is clear that no question 
I96o 
of discrimination at all arises. Similarly the fact that 
-
t• 
t k 
b th G 
t · 
State of Uttar 
ac ion was 
~ ~n y 
e overnmen m an emergency Pra!Wh .s. Others 
in the pubhc mterest would be a complete answer to 
v. 
the argument that that action is violative of the pro. Basti Sugar Mills 
visions of Art. 19(l)(g). The restriction placed upon 
Co., Ltd. 
the employer by such an order is only a temporary 
one and having been placed in the public interest Mudholkar f. 
would fall under cl. (6) of Art. 19 of the Constitution. 
Upon this view we hold that the High Court was in 
error in issuing a writ against the State Government 
quashing their order in so far as it related to pay-
' ment of bonus. The appeal is allowed and order of 
the High Court is set a.side. Costs of this appeal will 
be paid by the respondents. 
Appeal allowed. 
MANOHAR LAL 
v. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB 
(JAFER IMAM, J. L. KAPUR, K. c. DAS GU.PTA, 
RAGHUBAR DAYAL and 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.) 
Trade Employees-Close day-Enactment, if violative of funila-
mental rights-Workers' Welfare-Protection-Restriction, if im-
reasonable-Punjab Trade Employees Act, z940, (Punj. X of z940) 
s. 7 (I) 
The appellant who was a shopkeeper was convicted for the 
second time by the Additional District Magistrate for contraven-
ing the provisions of s. 7(1) of the Punjab Trade Employees Act, 
1940, under which he was required to keep his shop closed on 
the day which he had himself chosen as a "close day ''. He 
raised the plea that the Act did not apply to his shop as he did 
not employ any-stranger but that himself alone worked in it and 
that the application of s. 7(1) to his shop would be· violative of 
his fundamental rights under Arts. 14, 19(1)(f) and (g) of the 
Constitution and also that the restriction imposed was not reason-
able within Art. xg(6) as it was not in the interest of the general 
1960 
November II. 
kl cmohar Lal 
v. 
The State of 
Punjab 
Ayyangar ] • 
344 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1961] 
public. The High Court dismissed his application for rev1s1on 
of the Magistrate's order. On appeal on a certificate of the 
High Court, 
Held, that the main object of the Act was the welfare of the 
employees and to protect their as well as the employers' health 
by preventing them from overwork. Such a restriction being in 
the interest of the general public was reasonable within the 
meaning of Art. 19(6) of the Constitution. 
The provisions of s. 7(1) were constitutionally valid and 
were justified as for securing administrative convenience and 
avoiding evasion of those provisions designed for the protection 
of the workmen. 
Manohar Lal v. The Staie, [1951] S.C.R. 671, referred to. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 173/1956. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated May 
23, 1956, of the Punjab High Court in Criminal 
Revision No. 1058/1954. 
K. L. Arora, for the appellant. 
N. S. Binilra and R.H. Dhebar, for tho respondent. 
1960. November 11. The Judgment of tho Court 
was delivered by 
AYYANGAR J.-This appeal on a certificate under 
Arts. 132 and 134(1) of the Constitution granted by the 
High Court of Punjab raises for consideration t,he con-
stitutionality of s. 7(1) of the Punjab Trade Emplo-
yees Act, 1940. 
The a.ppellant-Manohar Lal-has a shop at Feroze-
pore Ca.ntt. in which business is carried on under 
the nn.me and style of' Imperial Book Depot'. Sec-
tion 7 of the Punjab Trade Employees Act, 1940 (hero-
inaftcr called the Act}, enacts : 
"7. (1) Save as otherwise provided by this Act, 
,every shop or commercial establishment shall remain 
closed on a. c1ose day. 
(2)(i). 
The choice of a close day shall rest with 
the occupier of a shop or commercial establishment 
and ::ihall be intimated to the prescribed authority 
within two months of tho date on which this Act comes 
into force." 
tn extract the provision relevant to this appeal. The 
( 
" 
~. 
2. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
345 
a.ppellan~ ha.d chosen Friday as " the close day '', i.e., 
the da.y of the week on which his shop would remain 
closed. The Inspector of Shops and Commercial 
Establishments, Ferozepore Circle, visited the appel-
lant's shop on Friday, th-e 29th of January, 1954, 
a.nd found the shop open and the appellant's son sel-
ling articles. 
Obviously, if s. 7(1) were valid, the 
a.ppella.nt wa.s guilty of a contravention of its terms 
and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.