Fundamental rights voidness and economic classification upheld where liability and labour welfare collection had rational statutory basis.

A law infringing fundamental rights is void only to the extent of the contravention and only against persons whose rights are actually infringed; a corporate respondent could not rely on citizens' Article 19 rights to treat the statutory recovery provisions as non-existent against it. The Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act scheme for unpaid accumulations was therefore operative against the respondent. On Article 14, the definition of "establishment" was upheld because the classification of factories, transport services and larger establishments, while excluding smaller and certain government establishments, had a rational nexus with labour welfare collection and was justified by administrative convenience and practical feasibility.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a corporate respondent could invoke alleged infringement of citizens' rights under Article 19(1)(f) to contend that the impugned provisions were void and non-existent against non-citizens, and thereby resist recovery of unpaid accumulations; (ii) Whether the definition of "establishment" in section 2(4) of the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1953 was discriminatory and violative of Article 14.

Issue (i): Whether a corporate respondent could invoke alleged infringement of citizens' rights under Article 19(1)(f) to contend that the impugned provisions were void and non-existent against non-citizens, and thereby resist recovery of unpaid accumulations.

Analysis: The amended scheme treated unpaid accumulations as abandoned property only in a limited sense and provided notice and adjudication before any final appropriation as bona vacantia. The conclusion on Article 13 was that a law void for infringement of fundamental rights is void only to the extent of the contravention, and the voidness is confined to those whose rights are actually infringed. A non-citizen, or a person without the relevant fundamental right, cannot treat such a law as a nullity for all purposes. The corporate respondent retained only the ordinary right to property under Article 226, but could not rely on citizens' Article 19 rights to deny the statutory liability.

Conclusion: The challenge based on Article 19(1)(f) failed, and the respondent could not contend that the statute was non-est against it.

Issue (ii): Whether the definition of "establishment" in section 2(4) of the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1953 was discriminatory and violative of Article 14.

Analysis: The legislation was aimed at collecting unpaid accumulations for labour welfare, and the classification brought within its scope factories, tramway or motor omnibus services, and larger establishments employing more than fifty persons, while excluding smaller establishments and certain government establishments. In economic legislation, classification may proceed step by step, and exact symmetry is not required if the scheme is based on administrative convenience, collection feasibility, and a rational relation to the legislative object. The exclusion of smaller establishments and the inclusion of the specified classes were held to rest on a permissible basis and not on invidious discrimination.

Conclusion: The definition of "establishment" was upheld as valid and not hit by Article 14.

Final Conclusion: The impugned provisions were sustained, and the appeals succeeded with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A law that infringes fundamental rights is void only to the extent and against the persons affected by the contravention, and an economic classification will be upheld under Article 14 if it has a rational nexus with the legislative object and is supported by administrative and practical considerations.

---