Skip to content


ZahiruddIn Vs. State of Mysore and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 151 of 1955
Judge
Reported inAIR1957Kant64; AIR1957Mys64; 1957CriLJ984
ActsMysore Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 - Sections 6, 11(1) and 45; Constitution of India - Article 19, 19(1) and 19(6); The Weekly Holidays Act, 1942
AppellantZahiruddin
RespondentState of Mysore and anr.
Appellant AdvocateC.B. Motiya, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateD.M. Chandrasekhar, Adv. for ;Adv. General
Excerpt:
.....petition for article 19(1)(g) has to be read along with article 19(6) since it enables the state to make any law imposing in the interests of the general public reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by article 19(1)(g). section 11 (1) of the mysore shops and establishments act like some other provisions of the act is intended to regulate conditions of work in shops and commercial establishments which necessarily includes the safeguarding of the interests of employees and other similar establishments......on the exercise of the right conferred by article 19(1)(g). section 11 (1) of the mysore shops and establishments act like some other provisions of the act is intended to regulate conditions of work in shops and commercial establishments which necessarily includes the safeguarding of the interests of employees and other similar establishments. the petitioner himself admits that in addition to himself and the other members of his family there are employees working in his establishment, a weekly holiday on a definite day in the week is calculated to secure reasonable conditions for employees. it cannot therefore be said that section 11(1) of the act is unconstitutional. 3. in the course of arguments it was brought to our notice that the central enactment, the weekly holidays act,.....
Judgment:

Sreenivasa Rao, J.

1. The Petitioner has been prosecuted for an offence under Section 11 (1) read with Section 45 of the Mysore Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, on the ground that he was found carrying on business in his cycle shop on a declared weekly holiday. He has filed this writ petition for quashing the entire proceedings on the ground that the said provision, i.e., Section 11 (l) of the Act is wholly void.

He has also urged that Section 6 of the Act which enables Government by notification to exempt either permanently or for any specified period, any establishment or class of establishments, or person or class of persons, from all or any of the provisions of this Act, subject to such conditions as the Government deem fit, is void as it is arbitrary and discriminatory and does not contain within itself any criteria for such exemption.

The latter question however does not arise for consideration in this petition since it is not the Petitioner's case that he applied for exemption and was refused such exemption. The attack against the constitutionality of Section 11 (1) is on the ground that, it offends Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution inasmuch as it comes in the way of his exercising his profession or carrying on his occupation, trade or business. He further contends that it is against public interest inasmuch as his profession or trade is in the nature of public utility service.

2. It appears to us that there is no substance in the petition for Article 19(1)(g) has to be read along with Article 19(6) since it enables the State to make any law imposing in the interests of the general public reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by Article 19(1)(g). Section 11 (1) of the Mysore Shops and Establishments Act like some other provisions of the Act is intended to regulate conditions of work in shops and commercial establishments which necessarily includes the safeguarding of the interests of employees and other similar establishments.

The Petitioner himself admits that in addition to himself and the other members of his family there are employees working in his establishment, A weekly holiday on a definite day in the week is calculated to secure reasonable conditions for employees. It cannot therefore be said that Section 11(1) of the Act is unconstitutional.

3. In the course of arguments it was brought to our notice that the Central Enactment, The Weekly Holidays Act, 1942, deals with some matters including those dealt with under the Mysore Shops and Establishments Act and that to that extent the latter Act has become inoperative. That, however, is not a matter urged in this petition and does not arise for consideration.

4. We accordingly dismiss this petition, but in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to the costs of this petition.

5. Petition dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //