Workmen of Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Vs. Meenakshi Mills Ltd. & ANR [1992] INSC 160 (15 May 1992)
1992 Latest Caselaw 160 SC

Workmen of Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Vs. Meenakshi Mills Ltd. & Anr [1992] INSC 160 (15 May 1992)

Agrawal, S.C. (J) Agrawal, S.C. (J) Verma, Jagdish Saran (J) Reddy, K. Jayachandra (J) Ray, G.N. (J) Patnaik, R.C. (J)

CITATION: 1994 AIR 2696 1992 SCR (3) 409 1992 SCC (3) 336 JT 1992 (3) 446 1992 SCALE (1)1248

ACT:

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947/Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules:

Section 25-N/Rule 76-A and Form P-A-Restriction imposed on employer's right to retrench workmen-Whether violative of Article 19(1)(g)-Whether provision saved by Article 19(6)- Conferment of power to grant or refuse permission to retrench workmen on appropriate Government-Whether valid- Delegation of power to appropriate Government to specify authority-Whether unreasonable or arbitrary-Power to refuse or grant permission-Whether administrative or judicial in nature-Whether nonprescription of principles or guidelines for exercise of power and absence of provision for appeal or judicial review render provision unconstitutional-Denial of right to employer to challenge order refusing permission to retrench while granting similar right to workmen to challenge order granting permission-Whether discriminatory and unreasonable.

Constitution of India, 1950:

Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 19(6), 136 and 226-Restrictions imposed on the employer's right to retrench workmen- Constitutional validity of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Exercise of power to grant or refuse permission to retrench workmen-Non-prescription of guidelines-Whether a vitiating factor-Absnce of appeal or revision or review against the order of authority-Whether arbitrary or unreasonable-Denial of right to employer to challenge order refusing permission to retrench, while granting a similar right to workmen to challenge order granting permission to retrench-Whether discriminatory.

HEAD NOTE:

The validity of Section 25-N in Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, inserted by the Amendment Act, 1976, prescribing conditions precedent for retrenchment of workmen in an industrial establishment, was challenged before various High Courts. There was difference of opinion 410 amongst the High Courts. While one High Court upheld the validity of the Section, two other High Courts held the Section to be violative of the right guaranteed under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution imposing unreasonable restrictions on the right of the employer to retrench workmen, and invalid. The correctness of the decisions of these two High Court was challenged in the appeals and Writ Petitions filed before this Court.

On behalf of the workmen, it was contended that the right to retrench the workmen could only be regarded as a peripheral or concomitant right which facilitated the exercise of the right to carry on business but it could not be trated as an integral part of the right to carry on businss; that the employers in the instant cases were all companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956; and a company, being an artificial person, was not a citizen and it could not claim the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens under Article 19 of the Constitution; that the shareholder of a limited company could not be permitted to challenge the validity of Section 25-N inasmuch as by the said provision none of the fundamental rights of the shareholder is impaired; that in a modern public company, the shareholder, although a member, was in economic reality, a mere lender of capital on which he hoped for return but without any effective control over the borrower; that while considering the matter of grant or refusal of permission for retrenchment the appropriate Government or authority was required to exercise its power in a quasi-judicial manner, i.e., it must pass the order after affording an opportunity to both the parties, (the employer and the workmen) to make their submissions; that reference of a dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal depended on the discretion of the appropriate Government and there was no right as such to approach the Industrial Tribunal; that the power that was exercised by the appropriate Government or authority under sub-section (2) of section 25-N was similar to that exercised by the various authorities under section 33 of the Act while giving approval to the action taken by the management in discharging or punishing a workman whether by dismissal or otherwise or altering the conditions of service of the workman, that in cases where such approval was given to the action of the management, it was open to the workmen to raise a dispute and have it referred for adjudication under section 10 of the Act but no similar right was available to the management.

On behalf of the employers it was submitted that the right of the employer to carry on any business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) included the right to organise the business in a way that it was most 411 beneficial for him and, if necessary, this may be achieved by limiting the labour force employed in the establishment and, therefore, the right to retrench workmen was an integral part of the right to carry on the business, and stood on a higher footing than the right to close the business because in the case of retrenchment, the business was continuing and only a part of labour force was dispensed with; that the appropriate Government or authority, while exercising power to grant or refuse permission to retrench under sub-section (2) of Section 25-N acted purely in an administrative capacity; that while passing an order under sub-section (2), the appropriate Government or authority could either grant or refuse permission for the proposed retrenchment in its entirety and that it was not permissible for it to grant permission for retrenchment of some out of the workmen proposed to be retrenched and refuse such permission in respect of the rest; that since no indication about the factors which were to be taken into consideration by the appropriate Government or authority while exercising its power was given in sub-section (2), it should be held that Parliament did not intend to alter the existing law governing retrenchment and the principles of industrial law that were applied by Industrial Tribunals for examining the validity of retrenchment under Section 25-F would also be applicable in the matter of exercise of power under sub- section (2) of section 25-N and that the principle of statutory construction was that the legislature should not be considered to make radical changes in law without using explicit language which unmistakably pointed in that direction; that in sub-section (7) of section 25-N, an indication had been given by the legislature about the factors which may be taken into consideration by the appropriate Government or authority while exercising its power under sub-section (2), that the two circumstances referred to in sub-section (7), viz., retrenchment being by way of victimization or the retrenchment not being in the interest of maintenance of industrial peace, could be treated as the factors which were required to be taken into account by the appropriate Government or authority while exercising its power under sub-section (2); that if the appropriate Government or authority, while passing the order under sub-section (2) was held to be exercising functions which were judicial in nature, then it must be held to be functioning as a tribunal for the purpose of Article 136 of the Constitution and an appeal would lie to this Court against such an order; that prior to the enactment of s.25- N, the validity of retrenchment in all industrial establishments, big or small, was required to be judicially determined by 412 industrial tribunals/labour courts by following the normal judicial procedure and as a result of the enactment of S.25- N retrenchment of workmen in industrial establishments to which the said provisions were applicable would be examined by the appropriate Government or the authority specified by the appropriate Government and the said authority could be any officer who need not be trained in law; that S.25-N did not give any indication about the status and qualifications of the officer who would be entrusted with the power to grant or refuse permission for retrenchment of workmen under sub-section (2) and it was left to the unguided discretion of the appropriate Government to nominate any officer as the authority entitled to exercise this power; that sub-section (2) of section 25-N did not prescribe any guidelines or principles to govern the exercise of the power that had been conferred on the appropriate government or the authority in the matter of grant or refusal of permission for retrenchment and in the absence of such guidelines or principles, it would be open to the appropriate Government or authority to take into account matters having no bearing or relevance to the legitimate need of the employer to reorganise his business and which might even be opposed to such need and that it would be permissible to pass the order by taking into consideration the state of unemployment in the State; that the requirement that reasons should be recorded in the order that was passed by the appropriate Government or authority would not provide any protection against arbitrary action because in the absence of principles governing the exercise of the power, there was no touchstone to assess the validity of those reasons; that the considerations referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 25- N, as substituted by Amending Act 49 of 1984, were declaratory in character and the same were also required to be taken into consideration in the matter of exercise of power by the appropriate Government or the authority under sub-section (2) of Section 25-N as originally enacted, that the "interest of the workmen and all other relevant factors" would result in introducing impermissible elements in the matter of exercise of the power to grant or refuse permission for retrenchment inasmuch as the order for grant or refusal of permission for retrenchment was only to be based on the relevant circumstances, namely, that the action of the employer was bona fide and was not actuated by victimisation or unfair labour practice, and that the retrenchment would always be prejudicial to the "interests of the workmen" and if the interests of workmen were to be taken into consideration, permission for retrenchment would never be 413 granted; that no provisions had been made for an appeal or revision against the order passed by the appropriate Government or authority granting or refusing permission for retrenchment of workmen under sub-section (2) of section 25- N, nor was there any provision for review, that the remedy of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution was not an adequate remedy inasmuch as the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution was very limited and did not enable challenge on the ground of an error of fact in the order; that the permission for retrenchment of workmen may be refused by the appropriate Government or authority under sub-section (2) of section 25- N on policy considerations and in that event relief under Article 226 of the Constitution may not be available, and that the provisions were ex-facie arbitrary and discriminatory inasmuch as while the workmen had a right to challenge on facts, the correctness of an order passed under sub-section (2) granting permission for retrenchment before the Industrial Tribunal by seeking a reference under Section 10 of the Act, the management did not have a similar right to challenge the validity of an order passed under sub- section (2) refusing or granting permission for retrenchment.

Upholding the validity of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as it stood prior to its amendment by Amendment Act of 1984, and directing the matters to be placed before a Division Bench for disposal, this Court,

HELD : 1. Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, did not suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality on the ground that it was violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and was not saved by Article 19(6) of the Constitution. [464 E] Excel Wear etc. v. Union of India and Ors., [1979] 1 SCR 1009 distinguished. I.D.L. Chemicals Ltd. v. T. Gattiah & Ors., D.B. Writ Appeal 16 of 1981, approved.

K.V. Rajendran v. Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Madurai and others, (1980) 2 LLJ 275 and M/s J.K. Synthetics and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., (1984) 48 FLR 125, overruled.

2.1 The object underlying the enactment of section 25- N, by introducing prior scrutiny of the reasons for retrenchment is to prevent avoidable 414 hardship to the employees resulting from retrenchment by protecting existing employment and check the growth of unemployment which would otherwise be the consequence of retrenchment in industrial etablishments employing large number of workmen. It is also intended to maintain higher tempo of production and productivity by preserving industrial peace and harmony.

In that sense, Section 25-N seeks to give effect to the mandate contained in the Directive Principles of the Constitution. The restrictions imposed by Section 25-N on the right of the employer to retrench the workmen must, therefore, be regarded as having been imposed in the interest of general public. [440 G, 441 A-B]

2.2. Ordinarily any restriction so imposed which has the effect of promoting or effectuating a directive principle can be presumed to be a reasonable restriction in public interest. A restriction imposed on the employer's right to terminate the service of an employee is not alien to the Constitutional scheme which indicates that the employer's right is not absolute. [441 C] The Indian Hume pipe Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen, [1960] 2 SCR 32, at pp. 36-37; Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, [1985] Suppl 2 SCR 51; Barsky v. Board of Regents of New York, 347 US 442 and The National Commission on Labour, report submitted in 1969, referred to.

2.3 The appropriate Government or authority, before passing an order granting or refusing permission for retrenchment, is required to make an enquiry, though the precise nature of the enquiry that is to be made is left in the discretion of the appropriate Government or authority, and further that the order that is passed by the appropriate Government or authority must be a speaking order containing reasons. The requirement to make an enquiry postulates and enquiry into the correctness of the facts stated by the employer in the notice served under clause (c) of sub- section (1) of section 25-N for retrenchment of the workmen and other relevant facts and circumstances including the employer's bona fides in making such retrenchment and such an enquiry involving ascertainment or relevant facts will necessarily require affording an opportunity to the parties viz., the employer and the workmen, who have an interest in the matter, to make their submissions. [442 G-H, 443 A-B]

2.4 Sub-rule (1) of Rule 76-A of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 framed by the Central Government under the Act, requires 415 that the notice required to be given under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 25-N shall be served in Form P-A.

Sub-rule (3) requires that the copy of the said notice or the application shall be served by the employer on the workmen concerned and a proof to that effect shall be submitted by the employer along with the notice or, as the case may be, the application. Sub-rule (4) lays down that the employer concerned shall furnish to the Central Government or the authority to whom the notice for retrenchment has been given or the application for permission for retrenchment has been made, such further information as the Central Government or, as the case may be, the authority considers necessary for arriving at a decision on the notice or, as the case may be, the application, as and when called for by such authority. Form P-A prescribes the various particulars in respect of which information has to be furnished by the employer in the notice served under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 25-N. Thus, the employer is required to furnish detailed information in respect of the working of the industrial undertaking so as to enable the appropriate Government or authority to make up its mind whether to grant or refuse permission for retrenchment. Before passing such order, the appropriate Government or authority will have to ascertain whether the said information furnished by the employer is correct and the proposed action involving retrenchment of workmen is necessary and if so, to what extent and for that purpose it would be necessary for the appropriate Government or authority to make an enquiry after affording an opportunity to the employer as well as the workmen to represent their case and make a speaking order containing reasons. This necessarily envisages exercise of functions which are not purely administrative in character and are quasijudicial in nature. [443 C-E, 444 E-F]

2.5 The words "as such government or authority thinks fit" do not mean that the government or authority may dispense with the enquiry at its discretion. These words only mean that the government or authority has the discretion about the nature of enquiry which it may make.

Therefore, while exercising its powers under sub-section (2) of section 25-N in the matter of granting or refusing permission for retrenchment, the appropriate government or the authority does not exercise powers which are purely administrative but exercises powers which are quasi-judicial in nature. [444 G-H, 445 A]

2.6 No words of limitation are found in sub-section (2) of Section 416 25-N which preclude the appropriate government or authority to grant partial permission in respect of some of the workmen out of the workmen proposed to be retrenched and refuse the same in respect of the rest keeping in view the particular facts in relation to a particular establishment.

Nor is there anything in sub-section (2) which requires the appropriate Government or authority to either grant permission for retrenchment of the entire lot of the workmen proposed to be retrenched or refuse to grant permission in respect of the entire lot of workmen. It may be that the appropriate Government or authority may feel that the demand of the management for the proposed retrenchment is pitched too high and that in view of the facts and circumstances revealed as a result of an enquiry it is found that the industrial establishment can be efficiently run after retrenching a few of the workmen proposed to be retrenched.

In that event, it would be permissible for the appropriate Government or authority to grant permission for retrenchment of only some of the workmen proposed to be retrenched and to refuse such permission for the rest of the workmen.[445 C-E]

3.1 Retrenchment, as defined in section 2(00), means termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action and those expressly excluded by clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the definition.

Therefore, it cannot be said that retrenchment means termination by the employer of the service of a workman as surplus labour. [447 B] D. Macropollo & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Their Employees' Union & Ors., (1958) 2 LLJ 492; Workmen of Subong Tea Estate v. The Outgoing Management of Subong Tead Estate & Anr., [1964] 5 SCR 602; Parry & Co. Ltd. v. P.C. Pal & Ors., [1969] 2 SCR 976 and Byram Pestonji Gariwala v. Union Bank of India AIR 1991 SC 2234, at p. 2242, distinguished.

State Bank of India v. Shri N. Sundara Money, [1976] 3 SCR 160; Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. v. Shambhu Nath Mukherjee & Ors., [1978] 1 SCR 591; Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, [1977] 1 SCR 586; Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi, [1981] 1 SCR 789; Mohanlal v. Management of M/s Bharat Electronics Ltd., [1981] 3 SCR 518; Management of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. M. Boraiah & Anr., [1984] 1 SCC 244; Gammon India Ltd. v. Niranjan Das, [1984] 1 SCC 509 and 417 Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. Chandigarh etc. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh, etc. [1990] 3 SCR 111, relied on.

3.2.In enacting Chapter V-B, the intention of Parliament was to alter the existing law relating to lay-off, retrenchment and closure in relation to larger industrial establishments falling within the ambit of Chapter V-B because it was felt that the existing law enabled large scale lay-offs, retrenchment and closures by large companies and undertakings and this had resulted in all-round demoralising effect on workmen. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that in enacting Section 25-N, Parliament did not intend to alter the existing industrial law governing retrenchment of workmen. [447 E-F]

4. Sub-section (2) deals with a stage prior to retrenchment whereas sub-section (7) deals with a stage after retrenchment. Sub-section (7) seeks to provide for disposal of industrial disputes arising due to retrenchment of workmen where either of the two conditions laid down in sub-section (7) is satisfied and which were pending at pre- reference stage on the date of commencement of the 1976 Act, by an authority specified by the appropriate Government instead of an Industrial Tribunal. Industrial disputes which do not fulfill either of these two conditions will have to be adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal after reference. The two conditions laid down in sub-section (7) which govern the withdrawal of the disputes pending at pre- reference stage and transfer for adjudication to the specified authority, cannot be equated with the considerations which should weigh with the appropriate Government or authority while exercising its power to grant or refuse permission for retrenchment of workmen under sub- section (2). [448 D-F]

5. Although the appropriate Government or authority was required to act judicially while granting or refusing permission for retrenchment of workmen under sub-section (2) of Section 25-N, it is not vested with the judicial power of the State and it cannot be regarded as a Tribunal within the meaning of Article 136 of the Constitution and no appeal would, therefore, lie to the Supreme Court against an order passed under sub-section (2) of Section 25-N. [449 G, 450 A] Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. P.N. Sharma & Anr., [1965] 2 SCR 366 and Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Lakshmichand, [1963] Supp. 1 418 SCR 242, referred to.

6.1 The power to grant or refuse permission for retrenchment of workmen that has been conferred under sub- section (2) has to be exercised on an objective consideration of the relevant facts after affording an opportunity to the parties having an interest in the matter and reasons have to be recorded in the order that is passed.

Rule 76-A of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules and From P-A prescribed under the said rules for the notice to be served under Claus (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 25- N, and the particulars which are required to be supplied by the employer under the various heads in the said notice.

The enquiry, which has to be made under sub-section (2) before an order granting or refusing permission for retrenchment of workmen is passed, would require an examination of the said particulars and other material that is furnished by the employer as well as the workmen. In view of the time limit of three months prescribed in sub- section (3) there is need for expeditious disposal which may not be feasible if the proceedings are conducted before a judicial officer accustomed to the judicial process.

Moreover, during the course of such consideration it may become necessary to explore the steps that may have to be taken to remove the causes necessitating the proposed retrenchment which may involve interaction between the various departments of the Government. This can be better appreciated and achieved by an executive officer rather than a judicial officer. The discretion conferred on the appropriate Government to specify the authority which may exercise the power under sub-section (2) is given to the Government itself and not to a subordinate officer. [451 E- H, 452 A, C]

6.2 Keeping in view the fact that the power to specify the authority which can exercise the power conferred under sub-section (2) of Section 25-N has been conferred on the appropriate Government, it cannot be held that the delegation of the power to the appropriate Government to specify the authority renders the provisions of Section 25-N as arbitrary or unreasonable. [453 B] Virendra v. State of Punjab & Anr., [1958] SCR 308 and Dawarka Prasad Laxmi Narian v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, [1984] SCR 803, referred to.

7.1. The power is not purely administrative in character but partakes exercise of a function which is judicial in nature. The exercise of the said 419 power envisages passing of a speaking order on an objective consideration of relevant facts after affording an opportunity to the concerned Parties Principles or guidelines are insisted with a view to control the exercise of discretion conferred by the statute. There is need for such principles or guidelines when the discretionary power is purely administrative in character to be exercised on the subjective opinion of the authority. The same is, however, not true when the power is required to be exercised on objective considerations by a speaking order after affording the parties an opportunity to put forward their respective points of view. That apart, it cannot be said that no guidance is given in the Act in the matter of exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 25-N. [453 G, 454 A]

7.2 The power conferred under sub-section (2) of section 25-N has to be exercised keeping in view the provisions of the Act and the object underlying the 1976 Act whereby section 25-N was inserted in the Act. The basic idea underlying all the Provision of the Act is the settlement of industrial disputes and the promotion of industrial peace so that the production may not be interrupted and the community in general may be benefited.

The object underlying the requirement of prior permission for retrenchment introduced by section 25-N as indicated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the 1976 Act, is to prevent avoidable hardship of unemployment to those already employed and maintain higher tempo of production and productivity. The said considerations coupled with the basic idea underlying the provisions of the Act, viz., settlement of industrial disputes and promotion of industrial peace, give a sufficient indication of the factors which have to be borne in mind by the appropriate Government or authority while exercising its power to grant or refuse permission for retrenchment under sub-section (2).

[454 C, E-F] Niemla Textile Finishing Mills Ltd. v. The 2nd Punjab Industrial Tribunal, [1957] SCR 335 at p. 352, relied on.

8.1 It is not correct to say that retrenchment would always be prejudicial to the "interests of the workmen" and if the interests of workmen were to be taken into consideration permission for retrenchment would never be granted. Assuming that the factors mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 25-N, as substituted by Amending Act 49 of 1984, are declaratory in nature and are required to be taken into consideration by the appropriate Government or the authority while passing an order under 420 sub-section (2) of section 25-N, as orginally enacted, it cannot be said that the interests of the workmen is not a relevant factor for exercising the said power. [455 C-D] Prof. Gower: Principles of Modern company Law 4th Edn. p.10., referred to.

8.2 The Indian Constitution recognises the role of workers in the management of the industries inasmuch as Article 43A requires that the State shall take steps by suitable legislation or in any other way to secure the participation of workers in the management of undertakings, establishments or other organisations engaged in any industry. [455 F]

8.3 The expression `interests of workers', covers the interests of all the workers employed in the establishment, including not only the workers who are proposed to be retrenched but also the workers who are to be retained. It would be in the interests of the workers as a whole that the industrial establishment in which they are employed continues to run in good health because sickness leading to closure of the establishment would result in unemployment for all of them. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the interests of workmen would always be adverse to the interests of the industrial establishment and no order granting permission for the retrenchment would be passed if the interests of the workers is to be taken into consideration. Since retrenchment of a large number of workmen would lead to worsening of the unemployment situation it cannot be said that the condition of unemployment in the particular industry or the condition of unemployment in the particular State have no relevance to the exercise of the power to grant or refuse permission for retrenchment of workmen under sub-section (2) of Section 25- N. These factors cannot be treated as alien to the factors which are required to be considered for exercising the said power. It is, therefore, not correct to say that sub- section (2) of Section 25-N by enabling the appropriate Government or authority to take into consideration the condition of employment in the industry or the condition of employment in the State imposes an unreasonable restriction on the right of the employer under Article 19(1)(g).

[457 D-G] National Textiles v. P.R. Ramakishnan, [1983] 1 SCR 922, relied on.

8.4 It is also not correct to say that the requirement of passing a speaking order containing reasons as laid down in sub-section(2) of Section 421 25-N does not provide sufficient safeguard against arbitrary action. Irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review, the recording of reasons by an administrative authority by itself, serves a salutarty purpose, viz., it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. [457 H, 458 A] S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, [1990] 4 SCC 594, relied on.

9.1 The order under sub-section (2) granting or refusing permission for retrenchment is to be passed either by the appropriate Government or authority specified by the appropriate Government, and the said order is required to be a speaking order based on objective consideration of relevant facts after following the principles of natural justice. In the circumstances the absence of a provision for appeal or revision is not of much consequence, especially when it is open to an aggrieved party to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constittution. [460 C-D] State of Bihar v. K.K.Misra & Ors., [1970] 3 SCR 181 and Excel Wear etc. v. Union of India and Ors., [1979] 1 SCR 1009, distinguished.

Organo Chemical Industries v. Union of India, [1980] 1 SCR 61 and Babubhai and Co. & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, [1985] 3 SCR 614, referred to.

9.2 The remedy of judicial review under Article 226 is an adequate protection against arbitrary action in the matter of exercise of power by the appropriate Government or authority under sub-section (2) of Section 25-N of the Act. [461 D] Rama Sugar Industries Ltd. v. State of A.P. & Ors., [1974] 2 SCR 787 and G.B. Mahajan & Ors. v. Jalgaon Municipal Council & Ors., [1991] 3 SCC 91, distinguished.

Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors., [1978] 2 SCR 272, referred to.

10. In order to validly retrench the workmen under Section 25-N, apart from obtaining permission for such retrenchment under sub-section (2), an employer has also to fulfil other requirements, namely, to give three months, notice or pay wages in lieu of notice to the workmen proposed to 422 be retrenched under clause (a) of sub-section (1), pay retrenchment compensation to them under clause (b) of sub- section (1) and to comply with the requirement of section 25-G, which is applicable to retrenchment under section 25-N in view of section 25-S. An industrial dispute may arise on account of failure on the part of the employer to comply with these condition and the same can be referred for adjudication under section 10. In addition, an industrial dispute could also be raised by the workmen in a case where retrenchment has been effected on the basis of permission deemed to have been granted under sub-section (3) of section 25-N on account of failure on the part of the appropriate Government or authority to communicate the order granting or refusing permission for retrenchment within a period of three months from the date of the service of notice under clause (c) of sub-section (1) because in such a case, there has been no consideration, on merits, of the reasons for proposed retrenchment by the appropriate Government or authority and reference of the dispute for adjudication would not be precluded. [462 G-H, 463 A-C]

10.2 Since there is no provision similar to that contained in sub-section (7) of section 25-N attaching finality to an order passed under sub-section (2) it would be permissible for the workmen aggrieved by retrenchment effected in pursuance of an order granting permission for such retrenchment to raise an industrial dispute claiming that the retrenchment was not justified and it would be permissible for the appropriate Government to refer such dispute for adjudication though the likelihood of such a dispute being referred for adjudication would be extremely remote since the order granting permission for retrenchment would have been passed either by the appropriate Government or authority specified by the appropriate Government and reference under s.10 of the Act is also to be made by the appropriate Government. Since the expression "industrial dispute" as defined in section 2(k) of the Act covers a dispute connected with non-employment of any person and section 10 of the Act empowers the appropriate government to make a reference in a case where an industrial dispute is apprehended, an employer proposing retrenchment of workmen, who feels aggrieved by an order rfusing permission for retrenchment under sub-section (2) of Section 25-N, can also move for reference of such a dispute relating to proposed retrenchment for adjudication under Section 10 of the Act though the possibility of such a reference would be equally remote. The employer who feels aggrieved by an order refusing permission for retrenchment thus stands on the same 423 footing as the workmen feeling aggrieved by an order granting permission for retrenchment under sub-section (2) of Section 25-N inasmuch as it is permissible for both to raise an industrial dispute which may be referred for adjudication by the appropriate Government and it cannot be said that, as compared to the workmen, the employer suffers from a disadvantage in the matter of raising an industrial dispute and having it referred for adjudication. [463 D-H, 464 A] All Saints High School, Hyderabad etc. v. Government of A.P. & Ors. etc. [1980] 2 SCR 924, referred to.

11. In view of the fact that some of the grounds for challenging the validity of Section 25-N on the ground of violation of Article 19 can also be made the basis for challenging the ground of violation of Article 14, it is not necessary to go into the question whether the right to retrench the workmen is an integral part of the right of the employer to carry on the business or it is only a peripheral or concomitant right which facilitates the exercise of the said fundamental right to carry on the business and it can be assumed that the right to retrench the workman is an integral part of the fundamental right of the employer to carry on the business under Article 19(1)(g). For the same reason, challenge to the validity of Section 25-N could not be ruled out on the ground that a company, incorporated under the Companies Act, being not a citizen, cannot invoke the fundamental right under Article 19 and the shareholders of the companies seeking to challenge the validity of Section 25-N in the instant cases cannot complain of infringement of their fundamental right under Article 19. [435 H, 436 A-C] All India Bank Employees' Association v. National Industrial Tribunal, [1962] 3 SCR 269; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, [1978] 2 SCR 621; Ch. Tika Ramji & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1956] SCR 393; State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam and Ors., [1964] 4 SCR 99 and State of Madras v. V.G.Row, [1952] 3 SCR 597, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 194 of 1983 etc.etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 16.3.1982 of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No. 489 of 1978.

424 M.K. Ramamurthy Dr. Sankar Ghose, R.K. Garg, G.B. Pai, F.S. Nariman, Hardev Singh, M.A. Krishnamoorthy, C. Ramamurthy, M.A. Chinaswamy, H. Subramaniam, C.S. Vaidyanathan, T.Raju, Mrs. Smitha Singh, J. Ramamurthy, R. Vaigai, P.P. Singh, M.P. Jha, Jitendra Sharmra, R.S. Hegde, K.R. Nagaraja, R. Mohan, Krishan Kumar, Ms. Poonam Madan, Ashok Kumar Gupta, V.D. Mehta, R.F. Nariman, R. Narain, Ashok Sagar, D.N. Mishra, Ms. Madhu Moolchandani, V. Krishnamurthy, Vimal Dave, W.C. Chopra, H.K. Puri, and Rajeshwar Rao for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the court was delivered by S.C. AGRAWAL, J. These appeals and writ petitions have been placed before us on a reference by a Division Bench of this Court for the reason that they raise the question involving the constitutional validity of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as `the act'). The validity of the said provision is assailed on the ground that it is violative of the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and is not saved by Clause (6) of Article 19.

Since the only question required to be considered by us is with regard to the validity of section 25-N of the Act and it can be decided on the basis of the relevant provisions of the Act without going into the facts of each case, we do not consider it necessary to set out the facts.

Section 25-N forms part of Chapter V-B which bears the heading "Special provisions relating to lay-off, retrenchment and closure in certain estabilshments". The said Chapter consists of Sections 25-K to 25-S and was inserted by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No.32 of 1976), hereinafter referred to as `the 1976 Act', with effect from March 5, 1976. Section 25-K, as originally enacted, confined the applicability of the provisions of Chapter V-B to industrial establishments in which not less than 300 workmen were employed on an average working day for the preceding twelve months. Section 25-M makes provision for prohibition of lay-off. Section 25-N prescribes the conditions precedent to retrenchment of workment. Section 25-O prescribes the procedure for closing down an undertaking. Sections 25-P contains special provision as to restarting of undertakings closed down before commencement of the 1976 Act. Section 25-Q imposes the penalty on the employee for contravention of the provisions of Section 25-M or Section 25-N.

425 Section 25-R prescribes the penalty for closure of an undertaking without complying with the provisions of sub- section (1) of Section 25-O. Section 25-S makes the provisions of Sections 25-B, 25-D, 25-FF, 25-G, 25-H and 25- J in Chapter V-A applicable to industrial establishments to which the provisions of Chapter V-B apply.

The validity of Section 25-N was challenged before the various High Courts and there is a conflict of opinion amongst the High Courts. A division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in I.D.L. Chemicals Ltd. v. T. Gattiah & Ors., (D.B. Writ Appeal 16 of 1981, decided on December 4, 1981) has upheld the validity of Section 25-N, while a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, in K.v. Rajendran v. Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Madurai and others, (1980) 2 LLJ 275, has taken a contrary view and has held Section 25-N to be violative of the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution imposing unreasonable restrictions on the said right of the employer. A Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, by majority (G.M. Lodha and G.K. Sharma, JJ., Dr. K.S. Sidhu, J. dissenting) in M/s. J.K. Synthetics and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., (1984) 48 FLR 125 has agreed with the view of the Madras High Court in K.V. Rajendran's case (supra) and has held Section 25-N to be invalid. The Madras High Court and the Rajasthan High Court have placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Excel Wear etc. v. Union of India and Ors., [1979] 1 SCR 1009 and have held that the resons for which this Court has struck down Section 25-O are equally applicable for judging the validity of section 25-N.

Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1984 is directed against the said judgment of the Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court.

Civil Appeal No. 194 of 1983 is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court based on the decision in K.V. Rajendran's case (supra).

The correctness of the decisions of the Rajasthan and Madras High Courts, referred to above, is under challenged in these matters before us.

After the decision of this Court in Excel Wear case (supra), Parliament enacted the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982 (Act No. 46 of 1982) whereby Section 25-O was substituted. By the said Act, amendments were also made in Sections 25-K and 25-R. As a result of the amendment made in Section 25-K, the number of workmen required for applicability of the provisions of Chapter V-B to an industrial establishment was reduced from 300 to 100.

In 1984, Parliament enacted Industrial 426 Disputes (Amendments) Act, 1984 (ACt No. 49 of 1984) whereby Section 25-N was substituted and amendment was also made in Section 25-Q. In this group of cases, we are concerned with the validity of the provisions of Section 25-N, as originally enacted, i.e., before the same was substituted by Amendment Act of 1984.

Since strong reliance has been placed by the Madras High Court and Raajasthan High Court on the decision of this Court in Excel Wear Case (supra), we consider it necessary to refer to the said decision before we proceed to deal with the submissions of the learned counsel. As indicated earlier, in Excel Wear case (supra), this Court was required to consider the validity of Section 25-O, as orginally enacted, i.e., prior to its substitution by Amendment Act of 1982, which read as under :

"(1) An employer who intends to close down an undertaking of an industrial establishment to which this Chapter applies shall serve, for previous approval at least ninety days before the date on which the intended closure is to become effective, a notice, in the prescribed manner, on the appropriate Government stating clearly the reasons for the intended closure of the undertaking:

Provided that nothing in this Section shall apply to an undertaking set up for the construction of buildings, bridges, roads, canals, dams or for other construction work.

(2) On receipt of a notice under sub-section (1) the appropriate Government may, if it is satisfied that the reasons for the intended closure of the undertaking are not adequate and sufficient or such closure is prejudicial to the public interest, by order, direct the employer not to close down such undertaking.

(3) Where a notice has been served on the appropriate Government by an employer under sub-s (1) of section 25FFA and the period of notice has not expired at at the commencement of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1976, such employer shall not close down the undertaking but shall, within a period of fifteen days from such commencement, apply to the appropriate Government for permission to close down the 427 undertaking.

(4) Where an application for permission has been made under sub-s. (3) and the appropriate Government does not communicate the permission of the refusal to grant the permission to the employer within a period of two months from the date on which the application is made, the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted on the expiration of the said period of two months.

(5) Where no application for permission under sub- s. (1) is made, or where no application for permission under sub-section (3) is made within the period specified therein or where the permission for closure has been refused, the closure of the undertaking shall be deemed to be illegal from the date of closure and the workman shall be entitled to all the benefits under any law for the time being in force as if no notice had been given to him.

(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1) and sub-section (3) the appropriate Government may, if it is satisfied that owing to such exceptional circumstances as accident in the undertaking or death of the employer or the like it is necessary so to do, by order direct that the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) shall not apply in relation to such undertaking for such period as may be specified in the order.

(7) Where an undertaking is approved or permitted to be closed down under sub-section (1) or sub- section (4), every workman in the said undertaking who has been in continuous service for not less than one year in that undertaking immediately before the date of application for permission under this section shall be entitled to notice and compensation as specified in Section 25-N as if the said workman had been retrenched under that section.

On an analysis of the said provisions, this Court pointed out :

(i) Under sub-section (1), if in the opinion of the appropriate 428 Government, the reasons for the intended closure were not adequate and sufficient or if the closure was prejudicial to the public interest, permission to clos down may be refused; and though the reasons given may be correct, yet permission could be refused if they were thought to be not adequate and sufficient by the State Government;

(ii) No reason was to be given in the order granting the permission or refusing it;

(iii) The appropriate Government was not enjoined to pass the order in terms of sub-section (2) within 90 days of the period of notice, although under sub-section (4) in a case covered by sub- section (3) it was incumbent upon the Government to communicate the permission or refusal within a period of two months, otherwise the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted;

and (iv) Sub-section (5) did not say as to whether the closure will be illegal or legal in case a notice under sub-section (1) had been given by the employer but in absence of any communication from the Government within a period of 90 days granting or refusing permission, the employer closes down the undertaking on the expiry of the said period.

While considering the question whether the right of the employer to close down a business was an integral part of the right to carry on any business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, this Court made a distinction between a case where a person does not start a business at all and a case where a person has started a business and wants to close it. It was observed :

"It is not quite correct to say that a right to close down a business can be equated or placed at par as high as the right to start or carry on business at all. The extreme proposition urged on behalf of the employers by equating the two rights and then placing them at par is not quite apposite and sound. Equally so, or rather, more emphatically we do reject the extreme contenion put forward on behalf of the Labour Unions that rights to close down a business is not an integral 429 part of the right to carry on a business, but it is a right appurtenant to the ownership of the property or that it is not a fundamental right at all. It is wrong to say that an employer has no right to close down a business once he starts it.

If he has such a right, as obviously he has, it cannot but be a fundamental right embedded in the right to carry on any business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution." (pp. 1027- 28) Having held that the employer had a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) to close down the business, this Court proceeded to examine whether the restrictions imposed under the impuged provisions contained in Section 25-O wer reasonable. The restrictions where held to be unreasonable for the following reasons :

(i) in contrast to the other provisions, Section 25-O (2) did not require the giving of reasons in the order and the authority could refuse permission to close down whimsically and capriciously;

(ii) If the Government order was not communicated to the employer within 90 days, strictly speaking, the criminal liability under section 25-F may not be attracted if on the expiry of that period he closes down the undertaking but the civil liability under section 25-O(5) would come into play even after the passing of the order of refusal of permission to close down on the expiry of the period of 90 days; and (iii) the order passed by the authority was not subject to any scrutiny by any higher authority or tribunal either in appeal or revision and the order could not be reviewed either.

The fact that Chapter V-B deals with certain comparatively bigger undertakings and of a few types only was, however, held to be a reasonable classification for the purpose of Article 14 of the constitution.

At this stage, it would be convenient to set out the impugened provisions of Section 25-N which provided as under :

"25-N. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen - (1) No workman employed in any industrial establishment to which this Chapter applies, who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched 430 by that employer until - (a) the workman has been given three months' notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice;

Provided that no such notice shall be necessary if the retrenchment is under an agreement, which specifies a date for termination of service;

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in execess of six months ; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette, and the permission of such Government or authority is obtained under sub- section (2).

(2) On receipt of a notice under clause (c) of sub- s. (1) the appropriate Government or authority may, after making such enquiry as such Government or authority thinks fit, grant or refuse, for reasons to be recorded in writing the permission for the retrenchment to which the notice relates.

(3) Where the Government or authority does not communicate the permission or the refusal to grant the permission to the employer within three months of the date of service of the notice under clause (c) of sub-s (1), the Government or authority shall be deemed to have granted permission for such retrenchment on the expiration of the said period of three months.

(4) Where at the commencement of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1976, the period of notice given under clause (a) of Section 25-F for the retrenchment of any workman has not expired, the employer shall not retrench the workman but shall, within a period of fifteen days from such commencement, apply to the appropriate Government or to the authority 431 specified in sub-s. (2) for permission for retrenchment.

(5) Where an application for permission has been made under sub-s. (4) and the appropriate Government or the authority, as the case may be, does not communicate the permission or the refusal to grant the permission to the employer within a period of two months from the date on which the application is made, the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted on the expiration of the said period of two months.

(6) Where no application for permission under clause (c) of sub-s. (1) is made, or where no application for permission under sub-s. (4) is made within the period specified therein or where the permission for the retrenchment has been refused, such retrenchment shall be deemed to be illegal from the date on which the notice of retrenchment was given to the workman and the workman shall be entitled to all the benefits under any law for the time being in force as if no notice had been given to him.

(7) Where at the commencement of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1976,, a dispute relating, either solely or in addition to other matters, to the retrenchment of any workman or workmen of an industrial estabalishment to which this Chapter applies is pending before a conciliation office or the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, and - (a) there is an allegation that such retrenchment is by way of victimisations; or (b) the appropriate Government is of the opinion that such retrenchment is not in the interest of the maintenance of industrial peace, the appropriate Government, if satisfied that it is necessary so to do, may by order, withdraw such dispute or, as the case may be, such dispute in so far as it relates to such retrenchment and transfer the same to an authority (being an authority specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official 432 Gazette) for consideration whether such retrenchment is justified and any order passed by such authority shall be final and binding on the employer and the workman or workmen".

A comparison of the aforesaid provisions of Section 25- N and Section 25-O, as originally enacted, which came up for consideration before this Court in Excel Wear case (supra), reveals following distinguishing features :

(i) Under sub-s. (2) of Section 25-O, the appropriate Government could direct the employer not to close down the undertaking on receipt of notice under clause (1) of sub-s.

(1) if the appropriate Government was "satisfied that the reasons for the intended closure of the undertaking are not adequate and sufficient or such closure was prejudicial to public interest", whereas sub-section (2) of section 25-N, required that the appropriate Government or the authority may grant or refuse permission for retrenchment "after making enquiry as such Government or authority thinks fit".

(ii) Under sub-s. (2) of Section 25-N the appropriate Government or the authority was required to record in writing the reasons for its order granting or refusing permission for retrenchment. There was no such requirement to record reasosns for refusal to grant permission to close down the undertaking in Section 25-O.

(iii) In sub-s. (3) of Section 25-N, it was provided that when the Government or authority does not communicate the permission or refusal to grant the permission to the employer within three months of the date of service of the notice under clause (c) of sub-s. (1), the Government or authority shall be deemed to have granted permission for such retrencchment on the expiration of the said period of three months. In Section 25-O there was no such requirement except in respect of cases covered by sub-s. (3), viz., where a notice had been served on the appropriate Government by an employer under sub-s. (1) of S. 25FFA and the period of notice had not expired at the commencement of the 1976 Act. In such cases, the employer was required to apply to the appropriate Government for permission to close down the undertaking within a period of fifteen days from commencement of the 1976 Act and in sub-s. (4) it was provided that where an application for permission had been made under sub-s. (3) and the appropriate Government does not communicate the permission or the 433 refusal to grant the permission to the employer within a period of two months from the date on which the application is amde, the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted on the expiration of the said period of two months. This provision was similar to that contained in sub-section (4) and (5) of Section 25-N. There was, however, no provision in section 25-O similar to that contained in sub-s. (3) of Section 25-N.

Some of these distinguishing features between Section 25-M and 25-N on the one hand and Section 25-O, on the other hand, have been mentioned, by way of contrast, by this Court in Excel Wear case (supra) in the following observations :

"Section 25M dealt with the imposition of further restrictions in the matter of lay-off. Section 25N provided for conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen. In these cases the vires of neither of the two sections was attacked. Rather, a contrast was made between the said provisions with those of section 25-O to attack the latter. The main different pointed out was that in sub-s. (3) of S.25M the authority while granting or refusing permission to the employer to lay-off was required to record reasons in writing and in sub-s. (4) a provision was made that the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted on the expiration of the period of two months. The period provided in sub-s. (4) enjoins the authority to pass the order one way or the other within the said period. Similarly in sub-s. (2) of S.25N reasons are required to be recorded in writing for grant or refusal of the permission for retrenchment and the provision for deemed permission was made in sub-s.

(3) on the failue of the governmental authority to communicate the permission or the refusal within a period of three months." [p.1023] It would thus appear that the considerations which weighed with this Court in Excel Wear case (supra) to strike down section 25-O cannot be applied for judging the validity of section 25-N and the validity of section 25- N will have to be considered in the light of the particular provisions contained therein.

We will now proceed to consider submissions that have been advanced by the learned Attoorney General, appearing for the Union of India, 434 and Shri M.K. Ramamurthi, Shri R.K.Garg, Shri C.S.

Vaidyanathan, appearing for the workmen, in support of the validity of the provision and shri F.S.Nariman, Shri G.B. Pai, Dr. Shankar Ghosh, appearing for the employers, who have assailed the validity of Section 25-N.

Arguments have been advanced by learned counsel on the following two question :

(1) Is the right to retrench his workmen an integral pat of the right of the employer to carry on his business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution ? (2) Are the restriction imposed by Section 25-N on the on the said right of the employer to retrench the workmen saved under clause (6) of Article 19 as reasonable restrictions in public interest ? The learned counsel appearing for the employers have submitted that the right of the employer to carry on any business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) includes the right to organise the business in a way that it is most beneficial for him and, if necessary,, this may be achieved by limiting the labour force employed in the establishment and, therefor, the right to retrench workmen is an integral part of the right to carry on the business. In support of this submission reliance is placed on the decision in Excel Wear Case (supra) where right to close the business has been held to be an integral part as the right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g). It is submitted that the right to retrench the workmen stands on a higher footing than the right to close the business because in the case of retrenchment, the business is continuing and only a part oflabour force is dispensed with. On behalf of the workmen, Shri Ramamurthi, on the basis of the decisions of this Court in All India Bank Emploees' Association v. National Industrial Tribunal, [1962] 3 SCR 269 and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, [1978] 2 SCR 621, at p. 701, has drawn a distinction between a right which is an integral part of the right to carry on business and a peripheral or concomitant right which facilitates the exercise of a named fundamental right or gives it meaning and substance or makes its exercise effective, but is itself not a guaranteed right included within the named fundamental right. The submission Shri Ramamurthi is that the right to retrench the workmen can only be regarded as a peripheral or concomitant right which facilitates the exercise of the right to carry on business but it cannot be treated as an integral part of the right to carry on business.

435 Shri Garg has assailed the correctness of the view in Excel Wear case (supra) that right to close down the business is an integral part of the right to carry on business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) and has susbmitted that it is in clear conflict with the earlier decision of this Court in Ch. Tika Ramji & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1956] SCR 393, wherein it has been observed:

"It is urged that, if the right to carry on business carries with it by necessary implication a right not to carry on business, if the right to speak freely carries with it by necessary implication the right to refrain from speaking at all, the right to form associations or unions also carries with it by necessary implication the right not to form associations or unions. In the first place, assuming that the right to form an association implies a right not to form an association, it does not follow that the negative right must also be regarded as a fundamental right. The citizens of India have many rights which have not been given the sanctity of fundamental rights and there is nothing absurd or uncommon if the positive right alone is made a fundamental right." (p.443) Shri Garg has further submitted that the employers in this group of cases are all companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956. A company , being an artificial person, is not a citizen and it cannot claim the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens under Article 19 of the Constitution. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam & Ors., [1964] 4 SCR wherein it has been held that the rights under Article 19 are available to citizens who are natural persons and are not available to juristic persons as they are not citizens under the Constitution. It is also submitted that the a shareholder of a limited company cannot be permitted to challenge the valid