RAMDHANDAS AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 852 · Decided: 20-04-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

r96I 
Inder Singh 
v. 
Gurdial Singh 
l 
!~ S. J{. Das ]. 
April IO, 
;~· 
852 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
< ' 
~ 
on March 24, 1946, and the execution of a deed of 
adoption which he cancelled within a short time were 
not a sufficient manifestation of the intention of N athu 
to adopt Inder Singh as his son. There was no evi-
dence that Nathu Singh treated Inder Singh as his 
son; on the contrary, there was evidence to show that 
he repudiated the declaration that he had earlier 
made. 
For the reasons give above, we see no merit in the 
appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
ItAMDHANDAS AND ANOTHER 
v. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB 
(P. B. G AJENDRAGADKAR, A. IC SARKAR, 
K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.) 
Shop Establishments-Enactment to provide for regulation of 
hoitrs of work-Constitutional validity-Forty eight hour week-
Opening and closing hours-Reasonable restrictions-Punjab Shops 
and Commercial Establishments Act, r958 ( Punj. I 5 of I958), . 
ss. 4, 7, 9, Io-Constitution of India, Arts. r9(r)(g), i9(6). 
Section 7 of the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments 
Act, 1958, provided that no person shall be employed about the 
business of an establishment for more than forty eight hours in 
any week and nine hours in any one day. Under s. 9 of the Act 
no establishment shall, save as otherwise provided by the Act, 
open earlier than .ten o'clock in the morning or close later than 
eight o'clock in the evening. The petitioners challenged the 
constitutional validity of the aforesaid provisions of the Act on 
the ground that having regard to the nature of their business, 
it would be impossible for them to carry it on in the manner in 
which they were doing unless the Act permitted them to work 
without regard to the restrictions imposed by the limitation as 
to hours of work of employees under s. 7(1) or the hours for the 
opening and closing of the establishments under s. 9, and that, 
; 
" . 
• 
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
853 
consequently, these provisions imposed unreasonable restric-
tions on their fundamental right to carry on their trade or busi-
ness under Art. r9(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The 
petitioners' case was that their business was such that the cus-
tomers who supplied them with goods brought them in vehicles 
which arrived at their godowns at all hours of the day and 
night and that they received messages by telephone and 
telegram similarly both.during day and night. These according 
to them rendered it necessary that their place of business 
should be kept open practically for all the 24 hours of 
the day. 
Held, that ss. 7 and g of the. Punjab Shops and Commercial 
Establishments Act, 1958, are intra vires the Constitution of 
India. 
· The test of constitutional validity is whether the impugned 
provisions of the Act which were enacted to afford the worker 
better conditions of work and more regulated hours so as to 
avoid physical overstrain and ensure to him a reasonable 
a1nount of leisure in the interest of the general public, are un-
reasonable restrictions from the point of view of the employer 
and go beyond what is reasonably needed to protect the worker. 
Judged· by this test, neithor the 48-hour week, nor the specifi-
cation of the opening and closing hours could be said to have 
gone beyond what by modern standards are necessary· for en-
suring the health and efficiency of the employee. 
Manohar Lal v. The State of Punjab, [1961] z S.C.R. 343, 
followed. 
ORIGINAL .JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 164 of 
1958. 
Writ Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of 
India for the enforcement of Fundamental Hights. 
N. 0. Chatterjee and N aunit Lal, for the petitioners. 
N. S. Bindra and D. Gupta, for the respondent. 
1961. 
April 10. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
I96I 
Ramdhandas 
v. 
State oj Punjab 
AYYANGAR, J.-The constitutional validity of the 
Ayyangar J. 
operative provisions of the P•mjab Shops a.nd Com-
mercial Establishments Act, 1958 (Punjab Act 15 of 
1958), which we shall hereafter refer to as the Act 
is challenged in this writ petition filed under Art. 32 
of the Constitution, seeking reliefs appropriate to such 
a challenge . 
There are two petitioners and the nature of the 
business carried on by them, which is set ont in the 
Ramdhandas 
v. 
State of Punjab 
Ayyangar ]. 
854 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
petition, indicates that they have combined with a 
view to bring 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.