Karnataka High Court
Natural Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Represented ... vs The Union Of India (Uoi), Ministry Of ... on 12 March, 2007
Equivalent citations: ILR2008KAR2221, 2007(3)KARLJ286, 2007 LAB. I. C. 2004, 2007 (4) ABR (NOC) 651 (KAR.) = 2007 (3) AIR KAR R 226, 2007 (3) AJHAR (NOC) 955 (KAR.) = 2007 LAB. I. C. 2004, 2007 (3) AIR KAR R 226, (2007) 3 KANT LJ 286, (2007) 2 LAB LN 930
ORDER H.V.G. Ramesh, J.
1. In this petition, petitioners have sought for to issue a writ in the nature or certiorari or any other writ or order and quash Section 66(1)(b) or the Factories Act, 1948.
2. The 1st petitioner-Factory is said to be engaged in manufacture and export of inner garments having high reputation in India as well as in the international market. Petitioners 2 to 11 are said to be the women employees working in the 1st petitioner establishment and in all about 193 women are working. Under the impression that the 1st petitioner is likely to retrench the substantial number of women employees as women employees arc barred from being employed beyond 7.00 p.m. under Section 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act of 1948 and that they would lose job and become unemployed in the event of enforcement of the said section, this petition is filed stating that the provisions provided are violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Articles 14, 15(1), 16(1), 16(2), 19(1)(g) and Article 21 r/w 39(a) of the Directive Principles of State Policy.
3. Heard the Counsel for the petitioners.
4. It is the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that due to social change from orthodox to present situation even women are participating in each and every field and if such a restraint is imposed, it comes in the way of employment and livelihood of petitioners 2 to 11 and accordingly, sought for to quash the provisions of Section 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act.
5. The High Court of Madras in W.P.No.4604-06/99 by order dated 8.12.00 has struck down Section 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act of 1948 as violative of above provisions. Similarly, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a division bench judgment reported in 2002-III-LLJ in W.P. No. 21610/99 by order dated 2.11.01 referring to the position of Madras High Court has reiterated these provisions as unconstitutional.
6. It is needless to say in the circumstances that when once any or the High Courts in the territory of India while dealing with the central legislation if it strikes down a particular provision as unconstitutional and the same is being removed from the statute, the submission that it is applicable only to the particular area is without any basis, unless and until the said order is set aside by the higher Court or by the larger bench and the effect of removal of a particular provision from the statute will have a bearing on the entire territory of India. In that view of the matter once again declaring Section 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act as unconstitutional is redundant and such a prayer may not survive for consideration, rather, it is to be clarified that if the authorities without knowing the implications try to enforce the said provision which is declared as unconstitutional and removed from the statute, unless it is shown that such an order is passed that it is applicable only to the particular territory, it amounts to enforcement of a provision without there being a statute and without there being any authority of law.
7. With the above clarifications and in view of the law laid down by the Madras High Court and the Division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, this petition is disposed of.