Arvind Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 21 July, 1965
There is nothing to show as to why an establishment carrying on a tramway or motor omnibus service should be within the preview of the impugned provisions while an establishment carrying on, for example, a goods transport service should not be unless it employs more than fifty persons. Apart from the difficulty of finding a rational basis for classification between a factory and an establishment carrying on other business or trade for the purpose of the applicability of the Act, the introduction of an establishment carrying on a tramway or motor omnibus service within the definition makes it impossible to find a rational principle underlying the classification which has any relation to the object of the Act. Then again a further difficulty is created by the clause which provides that Government factories shall be within the definition but not Government establishments other than factories. The learned Advocate-General pointed out that the Government is a distinct class by itself and can be treated separately for the purpose of legislation and in support of that contention he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mannalal and another v. Collector of Jhalawar and others [A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 828] and the decision of this Court in Laljimal Premsukhdas v. B. K. Kombrabail [I.L.R. 1965 Guj. 501]. We agree that the Government can form a separate class by itself for the purpose of legislation but the question is whether having regard to the fact that Government factories are included in the definition and only Government establishments other than factories are excluded, it would have been possible to contend that having regard to the object of the Act the Government could legitimately be treated as a separately class by itself, for if there are any unpaid accumulations with the Government, the Government could always be excepted to use them for the benefit of employees and it would not be necessary to transfer the unpaid accumulations from the Government to the board to effectuate that purpose. But we find that Government factories are included in the definition while only Government establishments other than factories are excluded and the entire basis of classification is thus destroyed. The only answer which was given in the affidavit of Sri Brahmbhatt was that there are hardly any establishments of the Central or State Governments which carry on business or trade or any work in connexion with or ancillary thereto and it was, therefore, felt that no useful purpose would be served by extending the purpose of the Act to such establishments. This in our opinion, is not a valid answer to the argument under the Art. 14. It is not as if there are no establishments of the Government which would otherwise fall within the definition. If that were the position, it could have been possibly contended that in fact there was no discrimination.