“ 8. The constitutional objection is that, the impugned provisions impose unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right of the petitioners “to carry on their trade or business”. The regulation of contracts of labour so as to ameliorate their conditions of work is in reality a problem of human relationship and social control for the advancement of the community. The public and social interest in the health and efficiency of the worker is, at the present day, beyond challenge. Our Constitution does not protect or guarantee any fundamental right in the nature of the provision in Article 1, Section 10(1), of the U.S. Constitution against “impairment of the obligation of contracts”. The only test of constitutional validity therefore is whether the provision in the impugned law, which is enacted to avoid physical overstrain of the worker, and so as to afford him better conditions of work, and more regulated hours, thus ensuring to him a reasonable amount of leisure —factors which would render the restrictions in the interest of the general public, is unreasonable from the point of view of the employer. For answering this question it would be necessary to ask — are the restrictions necessary, or do they go beyond what is reasonably needed to protect the worker? Judged by this test, neither the 48-hour week, nor the specification of the opening and closing hours can be said to have gone beyond what by modern standards are necessary for ensuring the health and efficiency of the employee. It might also be added that the concept of what is necessary to secure the welfare of labour, or indeed of the elements which determine its content are neither of them fixed or static, but are dynamic, being merely the manifestation or index of the social conscience as it grows and develops from time to time.”
