The Acting Chief Justice dismissed an appeal challenging Section 11 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act as ultravires. Upholding its validity based on earlier precedents, the Court held that legislative competence exists for such welfare provisions.
The appeal was dismissed without any specific relief being granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI
WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930
WA.No. 417 of 2007()
-------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.7329/2002 Dated 11/12/2006
APPELLANT/ PETITIONER:
E. JABAKUMAR SIMON, CHAIRMAN, HIGH RANGE MERCHANT ASSOCIATION, MUNNAR, DIST.IDUKKI.
BY ADV. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM
RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J.B.KOSHY, Ag.CJ & V.GIRI, J.
===========================
W.A.No.417 of 2007 - B
===============================
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
Koshy, Ag.CJ.
The contention of the appellant is that Section 11 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960
is ultravires and therefore, it should be struck down.
Section 11 of the above Act reads as follows:
“11. Closing of shops and grant of weekly holidays-
(1) Every shop shall remain entirely closed on one day of the week which day shall be specified by the shop-keeper in a notice permanently exhibited in a conspicuous place in the shop, and the day so specified shall not be altered by the shop-keeper more often than once in three months.
(2) Every person employed in a shop or a commercial establishment shall be allowed in each week a holiday of one whole day:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any person whose total period of employment in the week including any days spent on authorised leave, is less than six days, or entitle a person who has been allowed a whole holiday on the day on which the shop has remained closed in pursuance of sub-section (1) to an additional holiday.
W.A.No.417 of 2007 - B
2
(3) No deduction shall be made from the wages of any employee in an establishment on account of any day on which a holiday has been allowed in accordance with this section; and if such person is employed on the basis that he would not ordinarily receive wages for such day, he shall nonetheless be paid for such day the wages he would have drawn had the holiday not been allowed on that day”.
by the Division Bench of this Court earlier in Kunju Mohammed v. Labour Officer and another
(1975 KLT 448). The court also referred to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Ramdhandas v. State of Punjab (AIR 1961 SC 1559). Apart from the above, it cannot be stated that there is no legislative competence to the state legislature to pass such provisions as it is a welfare legislature to the labourers. For any particular reasons, if the appellant's shop situate in a tourist centre to be opened, it is for the appellant to apply for exemption under Section 5 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. Several exemption notifications were also issued by the
3
W.A.No.417 of 2007 - B
Government. If for any reason, appellant wants exemption, it is for him to seek exemption under Section 5 of the Act.
We see no merit in the appeal and hence dismissed.
J.B.KOSHY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE.
V.GIRI, JUDGE.
bkn/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 11 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 is ultravires the Constitution and liable to be struck down.
Whether a shop-keeper can claim exemption from weekly holiday provisions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kunju Mohammed v. Labour Officer and anotherReferred¶35
Kunju Mohammed v. Labour Officer and another (1975 KLT 448)
Ramdhandas v. State of PunjabReferred¶35
Ramdhandas v. State of Punjab (AIR 1961 SC 1559) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
E. Jabakumar Simon
The Assistant Labour Officer, Munnar
The Secretary to Govt. Labour & Rehabilitation Department, State of Kerala
J.B.Koshy
V.Giri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
