The lawsuit concerns the implementation and non-implementation of the Indian Constitution’s fundamental rights. In 1960, the State of Bombay was divided into Gujarat and Maharashtra with the aim of implementing the labour welfare act. This legislation was subsequently altered a second time in 1961. The issue of citizenship was raised, and the law that conflicted with Part III of the Indian Constitution was declared invalid.
state of gujarat v ambica mills Case Facts
- The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat dismissed a writ petition filed by Ambica Mills, a company registered under The Companies Act, alleging that Section 3(1) of the Act, which deals with unpaid accumulations mentioned in Section (2)(b), Section 3(4), and Section 6A of the Act, as well as Rules 3 and 4 of the bombay labour welfare rules are invalid and unconstitutional.
- The State of Bombay passed the Act for Labor in 1953 with the intention of funding social initiatives.
- The state government was granted authority under Section 19 to enact and enforce rules.
- The court declared that the provisions of Section 3(2)(b) are illegal in the case of Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing co. Ltd vs State of Bombay because they violate the employer’s fundamental rights as stated in article 19(1)(f) of the indian constitution.
- Following the First Amendment Act of 1961, the Hon. High Court of Bombay considered the Act and ruled that certain portions were unconstitutional.
With a few exceptions, the court dismissed the respondent’s arguments.
- The contested clauses were declared unconstitutional under article 13(2) of the indian constitution because they infringed upon the fundamental rights of citizens (employers and employees) as stated in article 19(1)(f) of the indian constitution. This ruling was made without the need for legal support.
- A portion of the contested sections and the entire section that breaches article 14 of the indian constitution are in violation of Section 2(4) of the act, which defines “Establishment” and is therefore void.
state of gujarat v ambica mills Issues
- Is it possible for the first respondent to argue that the provisions in question violated the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f) of citizen-employers or employees, thereby demonstrating the void and non-existence of the law and the improperness of the action taken against it?
- Whether the respondent’s basic right under article 14 of the indian constitution was breached by the definition of “establishment” in Section 2(4), rendering the contested sections invalid as a result?
- If such an assumption is true, the first respondent may invoke Article 13(2) to argue that the law was invalid against the non-citizen employers or employees and further argue that the non-citizen employers were unlawfully deprived of their property, since ex hypothesi a void law is a nullity.
Contentions by the Parties
Appellant:
- The distinction between factories and commercial establishments with fewer than 50 employees was made because industrial labour frequently changes jobs for a variety of reasons, and labour turnover is higher in factories than in commercial establishments other than factories.
Respondent:
- The contested clauses were null and unlawful under Article 13(2) of the Indian Constitution because they infringed upon the basic rights of citizens, employers, and employees as stated in Article 19(1)(f).
- The Welfare Commissioner’s notice is deemed invalid because there was no statute in place.
- The definition of “establishment” under Section 2(4) of the Act was extremely discriminatory, and since it is a fundamental component of every Act provision, all the provisions that are being contested must be deemed to violate Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
- The Act’s Section 2(4) definition of “establishment” lacks any discernible distinction.
- The establishments omitted from the description have an international connection to the Act’s purpose, which impacts employers’ rights and duties and violates Article 14.
- It is claimed that the Factories Act’s definition of “Factories” and “Establishments” are interchangeable. Furthermore, the classification is irrational since it excludes government buildings and factories with less than 50 workers while including establishments that operate trams and motor omnibuses.
- There must be no distinction in the way that establishments are treated, and the board must receive any unpaid accumulation, no matter how small.
state of gujarat v ambica mills Judgment
- The Indian Constitution granted essential rights to Indians, but it was unclear if non-citizens may also exercise these rights.
- The Honorable Supreme Court ruled that non-citizens are not entitled to the protection of the void statute, which is at odds with Section III of the Constitution, since they do not possess the essential rights.
- Consequently, the Apex Court reaffirmed that no legislation may be declared void in rem, or for all purposes, and that all current laws apply to non-citizens.
In the relationship between citizenship and fundamental rights, the right to property belongs to citizens, not to a non-citizen organization. The Court ruled that because non-citizens are not entitled to fundamental rights, they cannot benefit from the law’s voidness.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
