9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legislative competence of Parliament to enact the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966. 2. Violation of freedom of trade and business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 3. Validity of specific sections of the Act: Sections 4, 7(1)(c), 26, 27, 31, 37, and related rules. 4. Applicability of the Act to home workers. 5. Reasonableness and enforceability of the Act's provisions. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legislative Competence: The petitioners argued that the Act was beyond Parliament's legislative competence, asserting it fell under Entry 24 of the State List (List II), which pertains to industries. However, the Court held that the Act was valid under Entries 22, 23, and 24 of the Concurrent List (List III), which cover labour welfare, social security, and conditions of work. The Act's primary purpose was to improve the conditions of labour in the beedi and cigar industry, making it a valid subject for Parliament under the Concurrent List. 2. Violation of Article 19(1)(g): The petitioners claimed that the Act imposed unreasonable restrictions on their right to carry on trade and business. They argued that the Act's provisions, particularly those defining employer and principal employer, created vicarious liabilities that were commercially unviable. The Court found that the Act's provisions aimed to regulate labour conditions and were not unreasonable. The Act's requirements for licensing, health and welfare measures, and labour benefits were deemed necessary to protect workers' rights and did not constitute an unreasonable restriction on business. 3. Validity of Specific Sections and Rules: - Section 4: The Court upheld the licensing requirements, noting that the provisions were controlled by necessary guidance and safeguards, including the right to appeal. - Sections 7(1)(c), 26, 27, 31, and 37: The Court found these sections to be valid and not imposing unreasonable restrictions. The provisions for annual leave with wages, maternity benefits, and notice of dismissal were deemed enforceable and necessary for workers' welfare. - Rules on Rejection of Beedis: The Court upheld the rules limiting the rejection of beedis to 5%, with provisions for disputes to be resolved by inspectors. This was found to be a reasonable measure to prevent exploitation of workers. 4. Applicability to Home Workers: The Court addressed the applicability of the Act to home workers, emphasizing that the Act intended to cover all workers in the beedi and cigar industry, including those working from home. The definitions of "employee" and "establishment" in the Act were interpreted to include home workers. The Court rejected the argument that sections 26 and 27 were unenforceable for home workers, stating that the Act provided mechanisms to calculate leave wages and ensure compliance. 5. Reasonableness and Enforceability: The Court noted that while the Act aimed to regulate labour conditions comprehensively, it also recognized the practical challenges in its implementation, particularly for home workers. The Court suggested that the Act might require amendments to address these challenges but upheld the current provisions as constitutionally valid. The Court emphasized that the Act's primary goal was to ensure workers' welfare and that the provisions were designed to achieve this objective without imposing unreasonable restrictions on employers. Separate Judgments: Justice Alagiriswami concurred with the majority judgment but highlighted potential complications in the Act's implementation, particularly regarding the definitions of employer and contractor. He suggested that the Act might need amendments to address practical difficulties and ensure effective enforcement. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966, finding it within Parliament's legislative competence and not violative of constitutional rights. The Act's provisions were deemed reasonable and enforceable, with suggestions for potential amendments to address practical challenges in its implementation. The petitions were dismissed, and the judgments of the Madras, Bombay, and Andhra Pradesh High Courts were set aside where they had found parts of the Act unconstitutional.
|
