RAMDHANDAS AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

RAMDHANDAS AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Sections 7 and 9 of the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958, are constitutionally valid as they do not impose unreasonable restrictions on the petitioners' right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The court found that the restrictions of a 48-hour week and specified opening and closing hours are reasonable and necessary to protect worker welfare and public interest. Exceptions and flexibility provided in the Act further support the reasonableness of the scheme.

Parties
Petitioner: Ramdhandas; Respondent: State of Punjab
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 April 1961
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Decision on Constitutional Validity of Statute
Outcome
Petition dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Reasonable Restrictions, Fundamental Rights Under Article 19(1)(g), Shop and Establishment Regulation
Constitutional Law Labour Law Reasonable Restrictions Fundamental Rights Under Article 19(1)(g) Shop and Establishment Regulation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramdhandas

Petitioner

State of Punjab

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Decision on Constitutional Validity of Statute

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sections 7 and 9 of the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958, impose unreasonable restrictions on the right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Ratio Decidendi

Sections 7 and 9 of the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958, are constitutionally valid as they do not impose unreasonable restrictions on the petitioners' right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The court found that the restrictions of a 48-hour week and specified opening and closing hours are reasonable and necessary to protect worker welfare and public interest. Exceptions and flexibility provided in the Act further support the reasonableness of the scheme.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Petition dismissed.