https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168627 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. en-us Tue, 26 Mar 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 May 2015 10:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168627 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 26 Mar 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168627