Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.24 seconds)The Factories Act, 1948
Section 101 in The Factories Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Section 63 in The Factories Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 31 in The Factories Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
The Collector Of Malabar vs Erimal Ebrahim Hajee on 11 April, 1957
This argument was based on the premise that what constituted restrictions on the exercise of the right to carry on trade or business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) were the provisions embodied in the various sections of the Act and the rules made under the Act and Section 92 which merely provided a penalty for contravention of those provisions did not by itself constitute any restriction on that fundamental right. The latter was merely a consequential provision intended to enforce the observance of the restrictions. The second answer suggested by the learned Advocate General was that if the complaint of the petitioners was in respect of the provision in regard to sentence of imprisonment, the challenge could, if at all, be under Article 21 and not under Article 19(1)(g). He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Collector of Malabar v. Erimmal Ebrahim Hajee where it has been laid down that "if life or personal liberty is taken away lawfully trader Article 21, no question of the exercise of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) to (e) and (g) can be raised". Lastly it was urged by him that even if the impugned provision in regard to imposition of sentence of imprisonment contained in Section 92 was an integral part of the restrictive provisions contained in the Act and the Rules made under the Act and the validity of the restrictive provisions was, therefore, required to be tested in the light of the impugned provision-and this, we think, is the correct position in law-the challenge under Article 19(1)(g) must still fail inasmuch as the impugned provision did not make the restrictions unreasonable by making breach of them punishable with imprisonment and the restrictive provisions including the impugned provision were, therefore, clearly saved by Clause (6) of Article 19. This last argument of the learned Advocate General, is in our opinion well-founded and it is, therefore, not necessary to enter upon a consideration of the validity of the first two arguments urged by him.