Manohar Lal v. State of Punjab

INTERNAL AIDS TO INTERPRETATION (Purpose and Long Title)

INTRODUCTION

Words are the skin of language. Language gives its own meaning and interpretation of the law. It does so by employing appropriate phraseology to attain the object that the legislative policy seeks to achieve. Here, when the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous it would not be open to the courts to adopt a hypothetical construction on the ground that such a construction is more consistent with the alleged object and policy of the Act. But where such a plain reading leads to anomalies, injustices and absurdities, the court may look into the purpose for which the statute was enacted and try to interpret it so as to adhere to the purpose of the statute.

{7.1 introduction to internal aids, by N.S. Bindra}

FACTS

The Appellant, a shopkeeper, was convicted for contravening the provisions of Section 7(1) of the Punjab Trade Employees Act, 1940. Under the act, he was required to keep his shop closed on the day he chose as his “close day”. He contended that the act did not apply to him as he didn’t employ any stranger to work for him; rather, he worked alone.

ISSUE

The issue addressed in the current scenario was regarding the Constitutionality of Section 7(1) of the Punjab Trade Employees Act, 1940, particularly its application to shops where no employees were engaged (i.e., shops run solely by the owner).

RULE

Section 7 of the Punjab Trade Employees Act, 1940 states that:

“(1) Save as otherwise provided by this Act, every shop or commercial establishment shall remain closed on a close day and (2)(i) The choice of a close day shall rest with the occupier of a shop or commercial establishment and shall be intimated to the prescribed authority...”

DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT

The High Court dismissed the Appellant's plea regarding the unconstitutionality of Section 7(1) in its application to shops with no employees, but granted a certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court.

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

• The court observed that the submissions of the learned counsel, who placed considerable reliance on the Long Title of the Act to limit its scope only to "employees," should be repelled.

• The court held that the long title indicates the main purposes of the enactment but cannot control the express operative provisions of the Act, for instance, Section 7(1).

• The ratio of the legislation is social interest in the health of the worker who forms an essential part of the community and in whose welfare the community is vitally interested. The purpose of the act is the welfare of the workers.

• The court highlighted that other provisions, like Section 7(4) and 7(5), prevent both employers and workers from overworking to preserve the worker's health. The court applied this purposive construction to the owner-run shop, stating:

  "If such conditions were necessary in the case of a worker, there does not seem to be anything unreasonable in applying the same or similar principles to the employer who works on his own business."

• The legislation ensures that the businesses carried on are regulated in the health and welfare interests of not merely those employed but also for those engaged in it.

• Hence, a restriction imposed with a view to secure this purpose would be saved by Article 19(6) of the Constitution (as a reasonable restriction on the right to trade).

• This court finally repelled the attack on the Constitutionality of Section 7(1) of the Punjab Trade Employees Act, 1940, affirming that the mandatory closure rule applies even to owner-run shops.