TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court upholds Kerala holiday law, citing constitutional validity and reasonable restrictions.</h1> <h3>M.R.F. Ltd. Versus Inspector Kerala Govt. & ORS.</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) (Amendment) Act, 1990, ... - Issues Involved:1. Constitutional validity of the Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) (Amendment) Act, 1990.2. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Article 19(1)(g).3. Reasonableness of restrictions under Article 19(6).4. Compliance with Directive Principles of State Policy.5. Applicability of principles of natural justice in legislative action.Summary:1. Constitutional Validity of the Amending Act:The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) (Amendment) Act, 1990, which increased national holidays from three to four and festival holidays from four to nine, raising the total compulsory paid holidays from seven to thirteen. The appellants challenged this amendment, arguing it violated their Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(g) to carry on their trade, business, or profession.2. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Article 19(1)(g):The appellants contended that the increased holidays imposed unreasonable restrictions on their right to carry on trade or business, resulting in a loss of production and financial burden due to payment of wages for non-working days. The Court noted that Article 19(1)(g) is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6).3. Reasonableness of Restrictions under Article 19(6):The Court referred to several precedents, including the classic judgment in State of Madras vs. V. G. Row, to determine the reasonableness of restrictions. It emphasized that the test of reasonableness should consider the nature of the right infringed, the purpose of the restrictions, and the prevailing conditions. The Court found that the restrictions imposed by the Amending Act were reasonable and in the interest of the general public.4. Compliance with Directive Principles of State Policy:The Court highlighted that while Directive Principles of State Policy are not enforceable, they are fundamental in governance and should guide the State in making laws. Article 43, which mandates the State to secure a living wage and decent working conditions for workers, was particularly relevant. The Court noted that the increased holidays aimed to ensure workers' leisure and social and cultural opportunities, aligning with Article 43.5. Applicability of Principles of Natural Justice in Legislative Action:The appellants argued that they should have been given an opportunity to be heard before the amendment was enacted. The Court rejected this argument, stating that principles of natural justice do not apply to legislative actions. The Legislature, exercising its plenary power under Article 245, is not required to provide a hearing before enacting a law.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) (Amendment) Act, 1990. It ruled that the increased holidays did not violate the Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(g) and were reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6). The Act was also consistent with the Directive Principles of State Policy. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
