1985 (9) TMI 339 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:

1. Inclusion of "establishment of legal practitioners" within the definition of "commercial establishment" under the West Bengal Shops and Establishment (Amendment) Act, 1981.
2. Violation of constitutional safeguards under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
3. Reasonableness of restrictions imposed by the Act.
4. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution due to lack of rational classification.
5. Public interest under Article 19(6) of the Constitution.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Inclusion of "establishment of legal practitioners" within the definition of "commercial establishment" under the West Bengal Shops and Establishment (Amendment) Act, 1981:

The primary issue in this writ petition is the inclusion of "establishment of legal practitioners" within the definition of "commercial establishment" as introduced by the West Bengal Shops and Establishment (Amendment) Act, 1981. The petitioners, who are partners in a firm of Solicitors and Advocates, argue that this inclusion is inappropriate given the nature of legal work, which often requires the office to remain open beyond ordinary working hours to handle urgent pleadings and conferences with counsel.

2. Violation of constitutional safeguards under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution:

The petitioners contend that the inclusion of legal practitioners' establishments within the definition of "commercial establishment" imposes unreasonable restrictions on their profession, violating Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to practice any profession. The argument is that the nature of legal work necessitates flexibility in working hours, and the restrictions imposed by the Act make it nearly impossible to carry on their profession effectively.

3. Reasonableness of restrictions imposed by the Act:

The court examined whether the restrictions imposed by the Act, specifically the requirement for establishments to remain closed for one and a half days each week, are reasonable. The court noted that the legislative intent behind such restrictions is to regulate the conditions of work for employees and ensure their welfare. However, the court found that these restrictions also apply to employers, including legal practitioners, which imposes a significant limitation on their ability to practice their profession.

4. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution due to lack of rational classification:

The petitioners also argued that the amended definition under the 1981 Act violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. They contended that dissimilar objects, situations, and circumstances cannot be lumped together without proper classification. The court agreed, citing previous Supreme Court decisions that refusal to make a rational classification may itself operate as a denial of equality. The court observed that legal practitioners' establishments cannot be equated with other commercial establishments like meat shops or sweetmeat shops, and the lack of proper classification creates inequality.

5. Public interest under Article 19(6) of the Constitution:

The court considered whether the amendment serves the public interest as required under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. The court concluded that requiring lawyers' establishments to remain closed for all purposes would deny the public the opportunity to meet with their lawyers and seek legal assistance, particularly in urgent matters. This restriction does not serve the public interest and, therefore, cannot be justified under Article 19(6).

Conclusion:

The court declared that the inclusion of the "establishment of legal practitioners" within the definition of "commercial establishments" under the West Bengal Shops and Establishment (Amendment) Act, 1981, is violative of the constitutional safeguards guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(g) and 14 of the Constitution. The court restrained the respondent authorities from enforcing the provisions of the Act in so far as they apply to the establishments of legal practitioners. The rule was made absolute, with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →