The Assn Of Planters Of Kerala v. State of Kerala — 1992 DIGILAW 426 (KER)

JUDGMENT Varghese Kalliath, J. 1. These appeals raise a common question. The Learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petitions from which appeals are now filed by a common judgment. We propose to dispose of these appeals by a common judgment. 2. In all these appeals the only point that has been argued is the constitutionality of the Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Amendment Act, 1990, for short, the Amendment Act. The writ petitions filed before this court challenging the validity of the Act can be classed into three groups based on the nature of the Industrial Establishments The first group represents owners of tea, rubber, coffee and cardamom estate. The second group represents Industrial Establishments and Commercial Establishments, and the third group, textile mills and other factories. The challenge made by the petitioners was considered very elaborately by the learned Single Judge, The learned Single Judge found that the Amendment Act if constitutionally valid. Hence these appeals. 3. Now a short factual format: The Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Act, came into force on 29-12-1958. This Act provides for seven paid holidays, These paid holidays were classified into two: one, national holidays and other festival holidays. in the Act, there were three national holidays and four festival holidays. The national holidays are: 1) The Republic Day (26th January) 2) The Independence Day (15th August) & 3) The May Day (1st of May) The festival holidays are not identified. The Act provided, as stated earlier, three national holidays and four festival holidays, The Amendment Act amended S.3 of the Act by inserting 2nd October, the Gandhi Jayanthi day as a national holiday and increased the number of festival holidays from 4 to 9. 4. The Act provided, as stated earlier, three national holidays and four festival holidays, The Amendment Act amended S.3 of the Act by inserting 2nd October, the Gandhi Jayanthi day as a national holiday and increased the number of festival holidays from 4 to 9. 4. S.3 of the Act as amended reads thus : "Every employee shall be allowed in each calendar year a holiday of one whole day on the 26th January, the 15th August and the 1st May and (2nd October and nine other holidays) each of one whole day for such festivals as the Inspector may, in consultation with the employer and the employees, specify in respect of any industrial establishment : Provided that in the case of an industrial establishment which commences work for the first time after the commencement of a calendar year, the number of holidays for festivals allowable to and employee under this section during the remainder of that calendar year shall be fixed by the Inspector, so however that the number so fixed shall not be less than the number calculated at the rate of one day for every three mouths or part thereof of the remainder of such calendar year." It is clear that in the place of four festival holidays by the amendment it has been increased to 9 festival holidays and for three national holidays, it has been increased to 4 national holidays Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, who are the petitioners in the Original petitions, made it clear before the learned Single Judge and before us that they are not aggrieved by the amendment of S.3 of the Act by adding one rational holiday, namely, Gandhi Jayanthi day, the thrust of the arguments was against increasing the unspecified festival holidays. From the provisions it is clear that "nine other, holidays" are linked with festivals. 5. The object of the two classes of holidays, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, is totally different. The reason for giving national holidays cannot be Imported to the grant of festival holidays Perhaps on this distinction the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that they do not want to raise any challenge against the adding of Gandhi Jayanthi as a national holiday, 6. The Act is applicable to Industrial Establishment which will take in plantations also. The reason for giving national holidays cannot be Imported to the grant of festival holidays Perhaps on this distinction the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that they do not want to raise any challenge against the adding of Gandhi Jayanthi as a national holiday, 6. The Act is applicable to Industrial Establishment which will take in plantations also. That class of petitioners are also before us, in one of the leading cases argued, W. A. No. 1371 of 1991, the appellants are the Association of Planters of Kerala and one E K. Joseph, Managing Partner, E. K. Mathew and Bros, Alampally Estate, Pasuppara P.O., Kerala. It is stated by the appellants in the above appeal that the first appellant is an Association of planters of Kerala and it is a company incorporated under S.25 of the Companies Act, 1956. Their case is that the company is incorporated and constituted for the protection and promotion of the interest of the owners of tea, coffee, rubber and cardamom estates and for doing all necessary things conducive to the attainment of the objects set forth in the Memorandum of Association of the first appellant. Further it is submitted that many of the plantations situated throughout the State of Kerala are members of the first appellant. In the Original Petition a list is given showing inter alia the names of the persons who are members of the 1st appellant, extent of plantations held by them and the nature of plantations. This list is Annexure A From the arguments advanced, though in the Original Petition they have said that since by the increase in holidays and these holidays are paid holidays, the owners of the estate are put to great economic burden of paying wages to very large number of workers, learned counsel submitted that on that score the amendment act cannot be invalidated. But the thrust of the argument was that by giving paid holidays the industry will suffer in the matter of production and it will ultimately lead to a big national loss. Further it was submitted that not only it will be a national loss but it will affect the national economy in so far as it will have a serious impact on the power of the country to earn foreign exchange, W. A. 1371 of 1991 was argued as the leading case. Further it was submitted that not only it will be a national loss but it will affect the national economy in so far as it will have a serious impact on the power of the country to earn foreign exchange, W. A. 1371 of 1991 was argued as the leading case. The annexures and exhibits we refer to in this judgment are from W.A. 1371/91 and Original Petition in that case. 7. In the other two classes of appellants they also adopted the same basic argument since they are manufacturers and their production also will be seriously affected by giving additional holidays and ultimately It will result in national loss and the country's power of earning foreign exchange. 8. In the case filed by the owners of Textile Mills, it is pointed out that textile is a commodity declared under the Essential Commodities Act. They are also exporting textiles and so the loss of production would seriously affect the capacity of earning foreign exchange. In short, the main plank on which the argument preceded is that the amendment Act is a measure which is against the public Interest of the country. Of course, this aspect has been elaborated by the learned counsel for the appellants We will be considering this aspect also at appropriate occasion. We may add something more about the factual format. 9. The Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act 1958, was connected to provide for the grant of national and festival holidays to persons employed in industrial establishments in State of Kerala. The Act came into force in the State of Kerala on 29-12-1958 Industrial establishment is defined in S.2(e) of the Act to mean any establishment, industrial, commercial or otherwise, wherein (twenty) or more persons are employed or were employed on any day of the proceeding twelve months, and includes a) a factory as defined in the Factorial Act, 1948 (Central Act 63 of 1948); and b) a plantation; (ii) any other establishment which the Government may, by notification is the Gazette, declare to be an industrial establishment for the purposes of this Act. 10. Government has given power to declare an establishment as an industrial establishment for the purpose of the Act by notification. The Act also defines plantation, as also holidays and wages. 10. Government has given power to declare an establishment as an industrial establishment for the purpose of the Act by notification. The Act also defines plantation, as also holidays and wages. We are not very much concerned about the definitions of those terms since no arguments are advanced on the basis of the definition of plantation, Holiday of wages. 11. Under S.4 of the Act, every employer is bound to display in the premises of the industrial establishment a statement showing the holidays allowed in each calendar year under S.3, in such form, within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed. S.5(1) of the Act provided that notwithstanding any contract to the contrary every employee shall be paid wages for etch of the holidays allowed to him under S.3. According to sub-s.(2) of S.5 where an employee works on any holiday allowed under S.3, he shall be entitled to twice the wages and to avail himself of a substituted holiday on any other day. The proviso to S.5 made it clear that no such employee shall be entitled to be paid any wages for any of the holidays allowed under S.3, other than the 26th January," 15th August and 1st May, unless he has been in the service under the employer for a total period of thirty days within a contiguous period of ninety days immediately proceeding such holiday. According to the explanation of the said Section a weekly or other holiday or authorised leave of an employees shall be included in computing the period of thirty days mentioned in the proviso. 12. The amendment Act amended S.5 also. But the learned counsel for the appellants did not challenge the amendment of Sections of the Act. So we are not giving the details of that amendment. 13. It was contended that from the statements of objects and reasons for Introducing the original Act legislative decision was taken in regard to the number of holidays to be given only after due deliberation and on the advice of expert bodies such as the State Industrial Relations Board constituted by the Government to advise them on the question of labour policy. Further it is stated that the Industrial Relations Board consisted of the Government's representative the Labour Commissioner and Employers' and Employees' representatives. The appellants in W. A. No. 1371. Further it is stated that the Industrial Relations Board consisted of the Government's representative the Labour Commissioner and Employers' and Employees' representatives. The appellants in W. A. No. 1371. of 1991 has produced a true copy of the proceedings of the meeting of the Industrial Relations Board on the subject of holidays with pay, marked as Annexure D. In Annexure D it is stated that "After discussion, the Board decided that there should be a total of seven paid holidays, of which Independence Day, Republic Day and May Day should be accepted as paid holidays in all the States and the rest of the days should be decided regionally according to local sentiments and requirements." 14. It is pointed out that the statement of objects and reasons of the amendment Act does not Eradicate any serious deliberation before Introducing the amendment. The objects and reasons of the Amendment Act reads as follows: "It is considered necessary to provide specifically in the Kerala industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1958, that an employee will be entitled to wages for holidays mentioned in S.3, falling during the period of a strike or illegal lockout. It is also considered necessary to include 2nd October also as a holiday and to enhance the number of holidays other than 26th January, 15th August, 1st May, and 2nd October, from four to nine." 15. Learned counsel for the appellants, apart from challenging the escalation of festival holidays, has caused loss of production of essential commodities and commodities earning foreign exchange, also contended that before fixing use number of days as paid festival holidays there was no proper deliberation on the matter or proper examination of the question and that also is a matter which the court has to take note of in investigating the constitutionality of the provision. 16. It was pointed out that the counter affidavit also does cot give any indication as to a previous deliberation or taking up of statistics or an assessment of the need for enhancing the paid holidays Farther it is stated that there is no Indication anywhere that there was any demand from the employees for enhancing or increasing paid holidays. 17. It was pointed out that the counter affidavit also does cot give any indication as to a previous deliberation or taking up of statistics or an assessment of the need for enhancing the paid holidays Farther it is stated that there is no Indication anywhere that there was any demand from the employees for enhancing or increasing paid holidays. 17. The appellants contented that the Amendment Act which makes it obligatory on the appellants to grant additional five festival holidays amounts to an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution, namely, to carry on any occupation, trade or business. As indicated earlier it wan stressed very much that the Amendment Act was enacted without ascertaining any need for the tame and in fact when no need did exist. In short, they contended that the amended provision is arbitrary and one violating the fundamental rights of the appellants guaranteed under Art.14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, Appellants highlighted that need for industrial production is urgent and paramount. The right step to be taken was to reduce the number of such holidays rather than enhancing it and the appellants pointed out that the total number of paid holidays have been increased from 7 to 13 and that though it is a question of numbs! the extent to which the paid holidays have been increased Ipso facto shows the unreasonableness and arbitrariness of the provision of increasing the holidays. The appellants have given certain dates to show the resultant effect of giving so many paid holidays on the national and State economy in relation to the total reduction of production. They wanted this court to examine those facts also for the purpose of determining whether the increase of holidays is arbitrary and unreasonable considering the impact of the same on the national and State economy. 18. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, State of Kerala, indicated that the Amendment Act was passed after considering all its aspects and implications. No separate committee was consumed for the purpose of amending the Act to increase the holidays to the workers in the private sector since the original Act was enacted after a deep study in the matter by expert committee and all that was necessary was to consider the additional factors contributed by the long lapse of time necessitating an increase in paid holidays. Further it was stated that for introducing the Amendment Act Government took into consideration the changed social conditions, the Developments in the State, the number of holidays enjoyed by the other sectors etc. In taking a decision to increase the number of festival holidays the bill was referred to a subject committee before passing it as an act. 19. The counter affidavit state that the outlook towards labour have undergone a drastic change since the date of enactment of the Parent Acs of 1958 The modern concept on labour protection and welfare do require provision for rest and recreation. In the counter they refused the figures of the loss on production, given by the appellants and stated that they are hypothetical. The power to increase production requires healthy labour force and some recreation and rest would only make the labourer more fit and capable of doing their work more efficiently and satisfactorily and in fact the contentment of the labour would only result in more Production. During the arguments it was contended that the festival holidays are compulsorily compensatable as provided in the Act and if it is done in a scientific and pragmatic manner, no Industry will put to any difficulty of meeting the requirement regarding any urgent target of production or in the matter of aggregate production, 20. In the additional counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent 1 and 2 dated 21-10-1991, it is stated that as far as the Amendment Act is concerned the Government took into consideration the changed social conditions, the developments in the State, the number of holidays enjoyed by the other sectors etc and decided to increase the number of festival holidays, it may be mentioned that the Kerala Institute of Labour and Employment made a study of paid holidays available to Industrial workers in Kerala Stale in the year 1982 and published a report. A copy of the said report was produced marked as Ext. R1(a). Further it was stated that the details were collected after addressing 182 public and private Industrial Establishments in Kerala as to the National and Festival holidays allowed to their workers in the year 1982. 21. A copy of the said report was produced marked as Ext. R1(a). Further it was stated that the details were collected after addressing 182 public and private Industrial Establishments in Kerala as to the National and Festival holidays allowed to their workers in the year 1982. 21. In this counter it is stated that as per the analysis made in the said report the number of paid holidays available to Industrial workers in She public sector in Kerala ranged from 7 days to 21 days and in private sector from 7 days to 17 days. It was also pointed out that the Government of India had declared 16 holidays and the Government of Kerala declared 18 holidays for the year 1990. For 1991 also Government of India has declared 16 holidays and the Government of Kerala has declared 18 holidays. It wag contended that the declared paid holidays for industrial workers by an enactment cannot be considered as an unreasonable restriction of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art.19(1)(g). The Legislation can be challenged as unconstitutional, as opposed to fundamental rights guaranteed under Art.19(1)(g) only on establishing the fact that the number of holidays granted is so unreasonable that no Court can accept it as a reasonable restriction under Art.19(6) of the Constitution. 22. The State has taken a defence under Art.31(C). That ground was urged before the learned Single Judge and learned Single Judge on an elaborate consideration of that ground found that there is no merit in that ground and held after referring to AIR 1980 SC 1789 and AIR 1983 SC 239 that the benefit of Art.31(C) is not available to any legislation under Part IV other than those under Art.39(b) and (c). The learned Single Judge observed since the protective umbrella of Art.31C is not available, the impugned provisions will have to be tested in the light of Art.14 and 19. Of course ultimately the learned Single Judge found that the impugned legislation is not violative of Art.14 and 19. Before us the State did not seriously press the point that the legislation has got the protective umbrella under Art.31C. We also do not think that there is any merit in this submission. We also agree with what has been stated by the learned Single Judge on this aspect of the matter. Elaboration on this point, in the circumstances, we feel is totally uncalled for 23. We also do not think that there is any merit in this submission. We also agree with what has been stated by the learned Single Judge on this aspect of the matter. Elaboration on this point, in the circumstances, we feel is totally uncalled for 23. The learned counsel for the appellants did cot raise specifically any argument under Art.14 that the legislation is bad on account of lack of reasonable classification. But stated generally that the attack under Art.14 can be grounded only on the larger dimension of that Article, namely, any provision of any Act or any order administrative or executive, which is unfair and unreasonable or arbitrary will come within the purview of Art.14. So mainly we are only concerned about the reasonableness of the restriction. 24. There is no case that as a welfare measure making of law for compelling an industrial establishment to grant paid holidays is not within the competence of the legislature. It has to be remembered that a legislation mandating that Industrial establishment! should grant paid holidays cannot be faulted as unconstitutional if the restriction Imposed is reasonable. We have to bear in mind that we are only concerned with an amendment to an Act which has provided for paid holidays, by Increasing the number of holidays and so the only question ii whether the said increase of the number of holidays, viz, 4 to 9 is an unfair and unreasonable restriction of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art.19(1)(g) eventhough the fixation of 4 days festival holidays has not been challenged by appellants on the ground that such a fixation is an unreasonable restriction on the right under Art.19(1)(g) Though in the Original Petition there was a challenge in regard to granting of paid holiday for the national holiday - Gandhi Jayanthi Day - appellants conceded that it will not amount to an unreasonable restriction under Art.19(6) of the Constitution and did not challenge that part of the amendment. 25. When considering a provision which makes an inroad into the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art.19(1)(g) for the purpose of testing the constitutionality under Art.19(6) various constituent elements have to be considered by the Court 26. It is important for the Court to examine and certainly the court is obliged to consider whether the law has been made to give effect to a particular principles of state policy. It is important for the Court to examine and certainly the court is obliged to consider whether the law has been made to give effect to a particular principles of state policy. This consideration is portent with consequential restraints on the part of the Court faulting the act or provision as unconstitutional as it is an reasonable restriction under Art.19(6) of the Constitution. Really speaking even in regard to Art.19(6), its content is variable depending upon the legislation challenged before the Court It is strenuously urged that this law as well as other social welfare laws for the industrial labour has been made on the directive principles of State policy enshrined to Art.43. Art.43 reads thus: "The State shall endeavour to secure, by suitable legislation or economic organisation or in any other way, to all workers, agricultural, Industrial or otherwise, work, a living wage conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities.'' 27. Now we shall consider the general acceptance and understanding of the purport of a holiday. Of course there is a definition of holiday in the Act "to mean holiday provided in this Act." The term holiday is used to designate a consecrated day, or a day of recreation or amusement and of cessation from work. The term 'holiday' is sometimes used as meaning a consecrated day, or a religious festival, but it may also mean a day on which the ordinary occupations are suspended, or b day of exemption or cessation from work or of festivity, recreation, or amusement, and not a day of rest and religious devotion, and a legal holiday is a day designated and set apart by legislative enactment for one or more of such purposes. (See Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume XL. Page 410 ) In Corpus Juris Secundum in the same volume in the tame page it is stated. Holiday may be created and designated as such by statute and ordinarily a day cannot become a legal holiday without statutory sanction although it has been held that a holiday, at least a holiday in the general sense as distinguished from a legal or statutory holiday, may be created by general acceptance and observance, or observance amounting to a common law custom. 28. We are now here concerned about festival holidays. 28. We are now here concerned about festival holidays. It has to be remembered that feasts and festivals vary greatly in types and kinds. Though most of them are religious In background and character, other types have flourished for various lengths of lime in cultures and civilisation of the world, both ancient and modern. Included among such types are social and cultural festivals. The object and impetus for observing feasts or festivals are shrouded in reasons and facts which are obscure. But H cannot be said that it has no foundation. Feasts and festivals, whether religious or secular, national or local, have served to meet specific social and psychological needs. They serve a function of providing cohesiveness to institutions of society eg: Church, state and esoteric or socially accepted groups. The cohesiveness engendered in the celebration of feasts and festivals of minority groups often provides a position of strength to the minority group in influencing the institutions of the society and culture of the majority: When a particular religion becomes triumphant in its contest with other religions, it often incorporates elements from the feasts and festivals of the previously predominant religions into its own religious calendar. This has been an Important practice of all the world religions, both ancient and modern, in their attempts to bring about social solidarity, order and tranquillity. 29. Similarly, individuals can find cohesiveness psychologically by their participation In feasts and festivals, Reinterpretations of feasts and festivals may thus provide impulses for institutional changes, which generally occur in time of crisis and transition, (See Seasonal feasts and festivals, Mircea Eliade. The Sacred and the Profane). 30. Art.43 mandates among other welfare measures to be taken by the State to all workers, agricultural Industrial or otherwise, work, a living wage conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities. Learned counsel for the appellants in W. A. No. 1371 of 1991 submitted that granting of holiday cannot be considered as a measure to give a condition to promote social and cultural opportunities. Giving a holiday, he submitted, may promote and may be helpful for full enjoyment of the leisure. Giving a holiday for festival, according to him, cannot have any link for social and cultural opportunities or for leisure. We feel that it is difficult for us to agree with the submission made by the counsel. Giving a holiday, he submitted, may promote and may be helpful for full enjoyment of the leisure. Giving a holiday for festival, according to him, cannot have any link for social and cultural opportunities or for leisure. We feel that it is difficult for us to agree with the submission made by the counsel. When Art.43 directs the State to make laws to provide social and cultural opportunities to workers if there is a national festival or a religious festival or a feast in a locality where there is an industry, when all people participating in that feast and festival by availing a holiday and if the workers are denied such an opportunity it will have a social and psychological shellshock among the workers. The cohesiveness engendered in the celebration of feasts and festivals will be denied to the workers. On this view we feel that the fact that a feast or festival is not a day or rest and so it cannot be declared as a holiday and the purpose of giving a holiday is intended only for rest and leisure is not a submission which we cannot accept. We are of opinion that the begin and wholesome direction in Art.43 cast an obligation on the State to make laws to ensure to all workers reasonable and adequate facilities for full enjoyment of social and cultural opportunities. Since as already seen from what we have quoted from Corpus Jusis Secundum, that a holiday is a consecrated day or a religious festival and also can be a day of exemption or cessation from work or of festivity, recreation, or amusement and not a day of rest and religious devotion, we feel that festival holidays also will take in within the frame of Art.43 of the Constitution, conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of social and cultural opportunities. 31. Now we shall refer to certain decisional referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants referred us the decision in M/s. Laxmi Khandsari v. State of U.P. (AIR 1985 SC 873). This decision related to a notification under Sugar Cane (Control) Order (1966) of the State of U.P. imposing restriction in stopping power crushers for a certain period. The learned counsel for the appellants referred us the decision in M/s. Laxmi Khandsari v. State of U.P. (AIR 1985 SC 873). This decision related to a notification under Sugar Cane (Control) Order (1966) of the State of U.P. imposing restriction in stopping power crushers for a certain period. It was contended that the provisions are clearly violative of Art.19(1)(g) and the restrictions purported to be placed on the rights of the petitioners do not contain the quality of reasonableness. 32. Learned counsel wanted to rely on Para.12, 13 and 17. Referring to this decision he submitted that the Supreme Court has observed that "It is no doubt well settled that where a citizen complains of the violation of fundamental rights contained in sub clause (g) of clause (1) of Art.19 or for that matter in, any of sub clauses (a) to (g) thereof, the onus is on the State to prove or justify that the restraint or restrictions imposed on the fundamental rights under Clause.2 to 6 of the Article are reasonable, The learned counsel also referred us Saghir Ahmad's Case ( AIR 1954 SC 728 ), wherein the Supreme Court ha observed "There is undoubtedly a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of a legislation. But when the enactment on the face of it is found to violate a fundamental right guaranteed under Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution, it must be held to be invalid unless those who support the legislation can bring it within the purview of the exception laid down in clause (6) of the Article, If the respondents do not place any materials before the Court to establish that the legislation comes within the permissible limits of clause (6), it is surely nor for the appellants to prove negatively that the legislation was not reasonable and was not conducive to the welfare of the community." 33. In Mohammed Faruk v. State of Madhya Pradesh, ( AIR 1970 SC 93 ) Shah, J. reiterated the same principle thus : "When the validity of a law placing restriction upon the exercise of fundamental rights in Art.19(1) is challenged, the onus of proving to the satisfaction of the Court that the restriction is reasonable lies upon the State." 34. In Mohammed Faruk v. State of Madhya Pradesh, ( AIR 1970 SC 93 ) Shah, J. reiterated the same principle thus : "When the validity of a law placing restriction upon the exercise of fundamental rights in Art.19(1) is challenged, the onus of proving to the satisfaction of the Court that the restriction is reasonable lies upon the State." 34. Para.14 of the decision in M/s. Laxmi Khandsari's case Fasal Ali, J. referring to the decision above quoted, said that "when there is a clear violation of Art.19(1)(g), the State has to justify by acceptable evidence, Inevitable consequences or sufficient materials that the restriction, whether partial or complete, is in public interest and contains the quality of reasonableness. In the same decision Fazal Ali, J. said that "restrictions may be partial, complete, permanent or temporary but they must bear a close nexus with the object in the interest of which they are imposed.'' 35. Always the court should consider that the restriction must be in public interest and are imposed by striking a just balance between the deprivation of right and danger or evil sought to be avoided. (Sea Narendra Kumar v. The Union of India ( AIR 1960 SC 430 ), Diwan Sugar and General Mills (F) Ltd. v. The Union of India ( AIR 1959 SC 626 ) and The State of Rajasthan v. Nath Mal ( AIR 1954 SC 307 ). 36. It is impossible to forget the memorable decision of Patanjali, Sastri, C. J., in the State of Madras v. V. G. Row ( AIR 1952 SC 196 ) whenever we consider a question of reasonable restriction in regard to a provision which is stated to be partial, complete, permanent or temporary restriction of a fundamental right, particularly Art.19(1)(g). 37. We feel that we should quote the pragmatic passages from V. G. Row's case usually quoted by the Supreme Court in similar or like cases."............ the Court should consider not only factors such at the duration and the extent of the restrictions, but also the circumstances under which and the manner in which their imposition has been authorised. 37. We feel that we should quote the pragmatic passages from V. G. Row's case usually quoted by the Supreme Court in similar or like cases."............ the Court should consider not only factors such at the duration and the extent of the restrictions, but also the circumstances under which and the manner in which their imposition has been authorised. It is important in this context to bear in mind that the test of reasonableness, wherever prescribed, should be applied to each individual statute impugned, and no abstract standard, or general pattern of reasonableness can be laid down as applicable to all cases, The nature of the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing conditions at the time, should all enter into the judicial verdict. In evaluating such elusive factors and forming their own conception of what is reasonable, In all the circumstances of a given case, it is inevitable that the social philosophy and the scale of values of the Judges participating in the decision should play an important part, and the limit to their interference with legislative judgment in such cases can only be dictated by their sense of responsibility and self restraint and f he sobering reflection that the Constitution is meant not only for people of their way of thinking but for ail, and that the majority of the elected representatives of the people have, in authorising the imposition of the restrictions, considered them to be reasonable. (Emphasis added). 38. In examining the reasonableness of an impugned provision certainly we have to hold in mind what we have quoted above. Before we go into that crucial examination we shall also refer to certain other decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellants: Pfiser Private Ltd. v. The Workmen ( AIR 1963 SC 1103 ), Saxby and Farmer India v: Workmen ( AIR 1975 SC 534 ). Those cases relate to adjudication of Industrial disputes in regard to introduction of additional paid Holidays and also introducing additional shifts. The court was prepared to keep in mind the national emergency condition and the change of complexion of the problem on account of national emergency. Those cases relate to adjudication of Industrial disputes in regard to introduction of additional paid Holidays and also introducing additional shifts. The court was prepared to keep in mind the national emergency condition and the change of complexion of the problem on account of national emergency. It was pointed out that the Court has referred to the fact that "the whole economy of the country is now being put on a war basis and inevitably industrial production must be geared up to meet the requirements of the nation. There can be no doubt that the present, capital, labour and industrial adjudication alike must be sensitive and responsive, to the paramount requirement of the community which is faced with a grave danger, so, all legitimate efforts made on reasonable terms by the employer Jo produce more and more of the goods required for the community must receive the cooperation of the employees, of course on seasonable terms." It is pointed out that Gajendragadkar, J. in Pfizer's case was prepared to decide the Issues of adjudication in an industrial dispute relating to reduction of paid holidays giving peremptory end paramount requirement of the nation. On the basis of the above observations of Gajendragadkar, J., counsel wanted us to consider the question before us on the broad basis that increasing paid holidays will inevitably result in reduction of production and that circumstance also has to be taken into account in determining whether the restriction is reasonable or not under Art.19(6). 39. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that on a careful analysis of the decision it is possible; to come to a conclusion that, though His Lordship Justice Gajendragadkar made such observations, that no substantial relief was given to the industrialists, as against the Interest of the workers. It is also painted out that She industrial dispute between the Management of a factory manufacturing life savings such as antibiotics, anti tubercular drugs and vitamin products and their workmen. The Management introduced three shifts in most of its departments and reduced the number of paid holidays to 8 instead of 27, which were bring given to the workmen. The workmen resisted both the proposed changes. The employer contended that his factory was working a multiplicity of shifts with different times and the working did not fully utilize the machinery installed in the factory. The workmen resisted both the proposed changes. The employer contended that his factory was working a multiplicity of shifts with different times and the working did not fully utilize the machinery installed in the factory. More over the utilization of raw products which are manufactured by another factory of the employer was not satisfactory and as a result of inadequate production the employer was unable to meet the demand for its products from the market. 40. It was contended that as a result of the investigation made by its expert, the employer had come to the conclusion that the quality of the product would be very much improved if the section working in the production of the said drug was to work continuously. That was an additional reason to introduce three shifts. The workers contended that for several years past they had received the benefit of 5 days week and that had become a term of their employment The introduction of three shifts would inevitably convert the 5 days week into a 6 days week, and that would be a retrograde step highly prejudicial to their Interests. They were prepared that in case the needs of the factory required, they will be willing to work on two Saturdays, provided they were paid proper overtime wages for their work. They disputed the employer's case that there was a case for introducing such a drastic change as three shifts. The court found that the proposed change would have resulted in an additional load of 1 1/4 working hours and in no case would the working horns have increased beyond 48 hours. It was also found that the employer was willing to pay for the night work and prepared to pay extra payment for night shift and so held that in view of the fact that the working hours did not increase beyond 48 hours as required by S.51 of the Factories Act and also of the fact that the employer was prepared to give extra payment for the night work and the third shift, the grievance about denial of overtime is not justified. 41. Further, it was held the Introduction of three shifts could not be rejected in the circumstances of the case on the ground that it would involve working at night. 41. Further, it was held the Introduction of three shifts could not be rejected in the circumstances of the case on the ground that it would involve working at night. The court also said that by additional shifts work load may be increased and that might constitute a change in the conditions of service and so the Industrial Tribunal should examine the reasonableness in the change proposed to be made. But the court further observed that it could not be held that because the Standing Order contemplated the adoption of more than one shift, it is entirely and absolutely in the discretion of the management to make the change without due scrutiny by industrial adjudication and that it was not correct to say that because introduction of 3 shifts would mark a departure from the pattern prevailing in the pharmaceutical industry, the change could not be permitted, The court found that having regard to the relevant facts of the case, the number of public holidays which were granted by the employer and sanctioned by the Negotiable Instruments Act should be reduced to 16 every year, Learned counsel submitted that though the court permitted a seduction of holidays, the Supreme Court was not prepared to accept the case of the employee; to reduce the paid holidays from 27 to 8, but limited it to 16 every year. 42. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the pattern adopted in Pfizer's case was peculiar to the special features emerged in the case and the peculiar situations brought out by the parties in the case. 43. Saxby and Farmer (India) v. Workmen ( AIR 1975 SC 534 ) is also a case of adjudication of disputes relating to holidays, in this case the court held that there was no reason or justification for unpaid holidays not being curtained. It was polluted out that all the conditions which were necessary had been satisfied and the appellant was carrying on a work which required efficiency and increased production. It was observed taut there should be more concentration on increase of production and efficiency than on enjoying the holidays if the country is to march ahead on the road of prosperity. It was polluted out that all the conditions which were necessary had been satisfied and the appellant was carrying on a work which required efficiency and increased production. It was observed taut there should be more concentration on increase of production and efficiency than on enjoying the holidays if the country is to march ahead on the road of prosperity. Learned counsel emphasised the observations of Grover, J that ''the tribunal was wholly oblivious of the present day conditions and the necessity for increased production particularly, in the matter of utility of the companies and the companies that are producing goods for essential services like those carried on by the Indian Railways. It was said that in more than one occasion the supreme Court had observed that it is generality accepted that there are too many public holidays in our country, and that when the need for industrial production, is urgent and paramount, it may be advisable to reduce me number of such holidays in industrial concerns. Indeed it cannot be disputed that a necessary step in the direction of increasing the country's productivity is the reduction of number of holidays. The court referred Pfizer (P) Ltd. Bombay v. The Workmen ( AIR 1963 SC 1103 ) and Associated Cement Staff Union v. Associated Cement Co. ( AIR 1964 SC 914 ). 44. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the facts of this case cannot be taken as the general pattern of facts in all companies and all industrial establishments. The peculiar circumstances and the peculiar fact proved In the case persuaded the court to take a view that paid holidays should be limited as far as possible, Of course are bound to take note of the general observation that we must not be oblivious, of the present day condition and the necessity for increased production. 45. Counsel for the respondent also pointed out that the Industrial dispute decided in the case ( AIR 1975 SC 534 ) related to utility companies that are producing goods for essential services like those carried on by the Indian Rail ways. Certainly there may be some companies or establishments of the same nature which may come under the provisions of the amended Act. 46. Certainly there may be some companies or establishments of the same nature which may come under the provisions of the amended Act. 46. In Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Jan Mohammed Usmanbhai ( AIR 1986 SC 1205 ) the Supreme Court was considering the prohibition imposed in regard to operation of slaughter houses on certain days declared as holidays. It was contended that Art.19(1)(g) confers fundamental right to a citizen to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, Including conduct of slaughter houses. The court observed chat the Municipal Commissioner has declared certain days as holidays for the slaughter houses in order to give facilities to the Municipal staff working in the Municipal slaughter house to avail of their holidays, since no staff will be available to supervise the slaughter houses on holidays declared by the Municipal Commissioner for the staff, It was also found that "the court must in considering the validity of the law imposing prohibition on the carrying of a business or a profession attempt an evaluation of its direct and immediate impact upon the fundamental rights of the citizens affected thereby and the larger public interest sought to be ensured in the light of the object sought to be achieved, the necessity to resides the citizen's freedom, the inherent pernicious nature of the act prohibited or its capacity or tendency to be harmful to the general public the possibility of achieving the object by imposing a less drastic restraint, and in the absence of exceptional situations such as the prevalence of a state of emergency national or local, or the necessity to maintain necessary supplies or the necessity to stop activities inherently dangerous, the existence of a machinery to satisfy the administrative authority that a case for imposing restriction is made out or a less drastic restriction may ensure the object intended to be achieved." We do not think that this case may not in any way support the cases of the appellants, 47. All counsel appearing for the appellants very much stressed on the point that the burden of satisfying the court that the restriction is reasonable is on the state and that burden has to be discharged by placing materials before the court and that in this case no attempt has been made by the State, except some ipse dixit statements in the counter affidavit. 48. 48. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in considering the reasonableness of a prohibition, the court should bear in mind that whenever the court is called upon the question of reasonableness of a prohibition or restriction imposed by a law, which impinges on the right guaranteed under Art.19(1)(g), the context and the peculiar situation should alone be taken into account and no abstract standard or general pattern of reasonableness should be imported as applicable to all situations. 49. in V. G. Row's case Patanjall Sastri, C. J. has said, it is the obligation of the court to examine i) the nature of the right alleged to have been infringed; ii) the underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed; iii) the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied; iv) the disproportion of the imposition; and v) the prevailing conditions at the time. Of course the nature of the right infringed in this case is a partial restriction of the right under Art.19(1)(g). The second component is the underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed. It has to be remembered that festival holidays has been fixed by the Act as early as in 1958. The amended Act only increased the number of holidays. It is said that many social changes have taken place and the Government has in its counter affidavit stated that a statistical survey made by the Kerala Institute of Labour and Employment (sponsored by the Government of Kerala) had made a study on paid holidays to industrial workers in the year 1982 and that study report has been placed as an additional document and it is stated is the affidavit that paid holidays available to industrial workers in public sector its Kerala range from 7 days to 21 days and in private sector from 7 days to 17 days. The Government of India has declared 16 holidays and Government of Kerala, 18 holidays for the year 1990. It was urged that these are materials which have got close nexus and link to the underlying purpose of the restrictions and the question whether the increase of 4 festival holidays to 9 festival holidays is a disproportionate Imposition or not. 50. Except the industrial workers of the State, all the people of the State working in Government institutions are enabled to enjoy 16 holidays declared by Government of India or 18 holidays declared by Government of Kerala. 50. Except the industrial workers of the State, all the people of the State working in Government institutions are enabled to enjoy 16 holidays declared by Government of India or 18 holidays declared by Government of Kerala. Considering the menage of Art.43 of the Constitution, it was contended that it is difficult to gay that the increase of festival holidays from 4 to 9 is an unreasonable restriction which will invite the drastic consequence of invalidating the provision. To arrive at a judicial verdict, when evaluating such, elusive factors for the purpose of forming an opinion as to what is the extant of reasonable restriction that can be imposed by law on the fundamental rights of the citizen under Art.19 of Constitution, certainly the social philosophy of the Constitution emblematised by the founding fathers of the Constitution in Art.42 and 43 has to be given its pride of place, and the scale of values typified in Art.43 should have conspicuous and significant importance. 51. The State contends that the amendment Act was made by the State in fulfillment of the commitment laid on them by Art.43 of the Constitution. 52. Certainly Art.19(1)(g) confers fundamental rights upon a citizen to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. Art.13(2) provides that the State shall not make any law which taken away or abridges the rights conferred by Part III and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be invalid. Part IV directs the State to make some laws on the directive principles as detailed its Part IV of the Constitution. Art.13(2) of Part III interdicts that State shall not make any law which abridges or takes away the right conferred in Part III. Part IV directs the State to make some laws on the directive principles as detailed its Part IV of the Constitution. Art.13(2) of Part III interdicts that State shall not make any law which abridges or takes away the right conferred in Part III. In between these two constitutional mandates the legislative body has to keep a balance and the courts have to examine whether the laws made by the State keeps that balance that is required to have meaningful operation of both the parts, namely Part III and IV This is because Part III and IV together constitute "the core of commitment to social revolution and they, together, are the conscience of the Constitution," Granville Austin's observation is significantly pregnant with meaning when he said the position occupied by Part III and IV in our constitution are like two wheels of a chariot, one no lets important than the other. It in not permitted to forget or ignore one and if we ignore one, the other will loose its efficacy. The purpose and the object of these two parts of the Constitution is to achieve the social revolution which is the ideal which the visionary founders of the constitution had in their mind when they innovated and inlaid in the Constitution these two ports. One part surcharged with enforceability and the other giving a piece of pride and direction in the form that it is an obligation which cannot be ignored when making laws by the State. Court is also obliged to keep harmony and balance between fundamental rights and directive principles since both form essential features of the basic structure of the Constitution. 53. The rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution are not an end in themselves bat they are the means to an end, The end is specified in Part IV, Therefore, the rights conferred by Part III are essentially to be hedged within reasonable restrictions, It has to be remembered that the rights under Pad III are amenable to be suspended under uncommon and peculiar circumstances. 54. The extent of the right under Part III should be adjudicated by the courts when it is questioned as an infringement of the right by challenging a provision in an Act or an executive or administrative action. The rudder and compass of the adjudicating authority shall take In the ideals set out in Part IV. 54. The extent of the right under Part III should be adjudicated by the courts when it is questioned as an infringement of the right by challenging a provision in an Act or an executive or administrative action. The rudder and compass of the adjudicating authority shall take In the ideals set out in Part IV. So we must always try to keep an intimate link with Part IV when we want to decide a question of ensuring the freedom guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. 55. The question we have to consider has got an elusive character and so cannot be decided with exactitude to the extent of saying that in all given circumstances the increasing of the number of holidays from 4 to 9 will amount to unreasonable restriction. This we say so because, Patanjali Sastri C. J. himself has stated that the judges should bear in mind the significant fact that the majority of the elected representatives of the people have in authorizing the imposition of the restrictions, considered them to be reasonable. 56. Its regard to conditions of service of workmen and the amenities to be given to working class Courts have to take a very liberal attitude before faulting a legislation intended to augment the better working condition of the workers; on the ground that the Imposition of law is an infringement of the fundamental rights of the employer and that Infringement is an unreasonable restriction. (See AIR 1986 SC 1205 ). 57. We may here refer to the modern opinion that the court feels less constrained to give judicial deference to legislative judgment it; the field of human and civil rights than in that of economic regulation and that it is making a vigorous use of the equal protection clause to strike down legislative action in the area of fundamental human rights. See Developments in Equal Protection, 32 Harv. Law Rev. 1065 and 1127. Of course this principle has been evolved in the matter of equal protection clause. In considering the question of reasonableness also under Art.19(1)(g), we feel that we must show more deference to legislative judgment. Certainly we must remember the admonition of Mr. Justice Brandels, Mr. Justice Stone and Mr. Justice Cardozo, that we "do not sit as a super legislature. Of course this principle has been evolved in the matter of equal protection clause. In considering the question of reasonableness also under Art.19(1)(g), we feel that we must show more deference to legislative judgment. Certainly we must remember the admonition of Mr. Justice Brandels, Mr. Justice Stone and Mr. Justice Cardozo, that we "do not sit as a super legislature. " We have to remember that the legislation is directed to practical problems, that the economic mechanism is highly sensitive and complex, that many problems are singular and contingent that laws are not abstract propositions and do not relate to abstract units and are not to be measured by abstract symmetry, that exact wisdom and nice adaption of remedies cannot be required, that judgment is largely a prophecy based on meagre and uninterpreted, experience, should stand as reminder that in this area the Court does not take the equal protection requirement in a pedagogic manner. Vide - Joseph Tussman and Jacobusten Book - the Equal Protection of Law 37 California Law Review 341). 58. What is the "underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed"? No doubt, the legislative intention is to foster a measure of better working condition to a tester of industrial and agricultural workers and it is an attempt to harmonise and assimilate the Directive of State Policy in Art.43 of the Constitution, that the State shall endeavour to secure to all workers agricultural, Industrial or otherwise, work, a living wage conditions of work ensuring a decant standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities. The purpose of the restriction Is, in short, a welfare measure for the working class. 59. The third constituent postulated in V. G. Row's case is the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied. In all cases of social and industrial welfare legislative measures the restriction imposed need not be a restriction to annihilate an evil or a remedy for an existing evil. If the intent of the legislation is to ensure a decent standard of life to the weaker section or the working class and to secure social justice to them, the restrictions imposed on the rights guaranteed under Art.19(1)(g) are justified. 60. If the intent of the legislation is to ensure a decent standard of life to the weaker section or the working class and to secure social justice to them, the restrictions imposed on the rights guaranteed under Art.19(1)(g) are justified. 60. The fourth constituent namely, the "disproportion of the Imposition," we do not think that we can sit in judgment as an appellate legislative body to examine the legislative wisdom on certain aspect of the matter though we cannot abdicate altogether an enquiry as to the nature and severity of the imposition of the restriction. We knew as judicial decision makers, though we are supposed to know the well springs of legal sub culture, necessarily we have to balance and reconcile the Impact of the legal subculture with the democratic subculture. One of the first great minds to realise this was justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who over a century ago wrote that "the life of the law has not been logic, it has been experience .................................... The law embodies the story of a nation's development through many centuries, and is cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of, mathematics. in order to know what it is, we must know what it has been and what It tends to become ........The very considerations which judges most rarely mention, and always with an apology, are the secret root from which the law draws all the juices of life. I mean, of course, consideration of what is expedient for community concerned." 61. The number of holidays as festival holidays cannot be determined by the arithmetic of it Various components like the total number of working days and other constituent element like the number of festival holidays enjoyed by the working class in the other sectors have to be taken into account in fixing the number. The legislature is more competed to decide this matter. 62. The legislature is more competed to decide this matter. 62. The fifth constituent of V. G. Row's case also is linked with fixing of the somber of festival holidays, "the prevailing conditions at the time." The restrictions imposed by increasing the cumber of festival holidays on the freedom guaranteed under Art.19(1)(g) is after a lapes of several years, say 32 years: Any law made by the State has to be viewed as a social engineering to remove the existing imbalance in a particular sphere where a law making is necessary and to further the progress, serving the needs of the Socialist Democrative Bharat under rule of law. The over all pressing and prevailing social conditions and actualities of life are to be taken into account in adjudging whether impugned restriction is in tune with the prevailing condition or for that matter as to whether it is disproportionate to the restriction imposed in the freedom of individual, guaranteed under Art.19 of the Constitution. The test is whether the legislation would sub serve to annihilate an existing Imbalance of the society. In this context we have to bear in mind once again the words of caution echoed by Pathanjali Sastri, J. that "the majority of the elected representatives of the people have in authorising the imposition of the restrictions, consider them to be reasonable. 63. Before us, as we said earlier, the main thrust of argument was that, though the legislation Is a restriction to the right guaranteed under Art.19(1)(g) and as a restriction it has to be tested under Art.19(6) not on the economic impact it made on the petitioners or the employers of the Industries but must be tested on the basis of the Impact on the national economy and the drain It may have on the foreign earring capacity of the nation. True it is not possible for us to say that such an approach is not warranted when we consider the reasonableness of the restriction under Art.19(6) fur the simple reason that Art.19(6) postulates the Interests of the general public. True it is not possible for us to say that such an approach is not warranted when we consider the reasonableness of the restriction under Art.19(6) fur the simple reason that Art.19(6) postulates the Interests of the general public. Necessarily we have to strike a balance with the opponent Interests and in doing so we have to bear in mind that the subserving purpose of the legislation as manifested by the majoriterian view, is the social interest of the State as a whole to secure social justice to the workers who form an essential part of the community and whose welfare, therefore, the community is vitally interested. (See 1961 SC 418.) 64. Counsel for the respondents referred us to several decisions of the Supreme Court. In Manohar Lal v. The State of Pun jab ( AIR 1961 SC 418 ), the Supreme Court observed: "the legislation is in effect the exorcise of social control over the manner in which business should be carried on regulated in the interests of the health and welfare not merely of those employed In it but of all those engaged in it" Ramdhandas and another v. State of Punjab AIR 1961 SC 1559 ) is a decision which relates to restrictions imposed regarding the hours of employment of the employees and specification of opening and closing hours (Punjab shops and Commercial Establishments Act, (13 of 1958)). In considering the restrictions the Supreme Court answered that the restrictions are not unreasonable, though it affects the right to carry on any occupation, trade or business. The regulation of contracts of labour was intended to ameliorate the conditions of work "is in really 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."..................................... The only test of constitutional validity, therefore, it 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 mote 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." .................. It might also be added that the concept of what is necessary to secure she welfare of labour, or indeed of the element 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." 65. In Workman v. Reptakos Brett and Co. Ltd. ( 1992 (1) SCC 290 ) the Supreme Court was considering the question as to whether the dearness allowance to workman can be revived to the prejudice of workmen in case of financial stringency where wage structure is above the level of minimum wage. It was held that the scheme of payment of dearness allowance cannot be allowed to be revised to the prejudice of the workmen on mere ground that the scheme resulted in over neutralisation placing the worker at high wage level, In justifying that the wage structure cannot be allowed to be revised to the prejudice of workmen, Supreme Court observed, each category of the wage structure has to be tested at the anvil of social justice which is the live fibre of our society today. The court further observed, in a question of testing the correctness of wage structure the court must take into account the socio economic aspect of the wage structure and should accept as additional component as a guide for fixing the minimum wage in the industry: "children's education, medical requirement minimum recreation including festivals ceremonies and provision for old age marriages etc. would further constitute 25 per cent of the total minimum wage." 66. In Mohammed and Sons Their Workmen (1969) 1 EL J 539), Wanchoo C.J. Speaking for the court in a case where a question of an industrial dispute regarding holidays and leave observed thus : "We shall first take the question of holidays. The tribunal has provided that in future there will be a paid weekly holiday instead of an unpaid weekly holiday. It cannot be said that this decision of the tribunal is unsupportable for it seems to us that a paid weekly holiday should generally be the goal which industrial adjudication must keep in mind. The tribunal has provided that in future there will be a paid weekly holiday instead of an unpaid weekly holiday. It cannot be said that this decision of the tribunal is unsupportable for it seems to us that a paid weekly holiday should generally be the goal which industrial adjudication must keep in mind. Though therefore there is no reason for interference with this provision of the award, it must be borne in mind that this one provision alone results In an increase of wages by one sixth, Further, the tribunal has increased the paid festival holidays from two to eight. This has also thrown additional burden on the appellants. Finally the tribunal has provided ten day's paid casual leave per year while there was none so far. Thus on these two scores also the appellants will have to allow sixteen days' leave with wages and that again increase the annual burden by about 41/2 per cent, which taken together with the weekly paid holidays increased the wages by about 20 per cent per year. We see no reason to interfere with the provision as to festival holidays and casual leave," 67. Of course while accepting the increase of festival holidays and other holidays the court observed that the increase in paid holidays has to be borne in mind when considering the actual increase in wages. 68. Before closing our discussion on the question whether the increase of the paid festival holidays is reasonable or not, we may also advert to S.4(a) which gives power to the employs to require the employee to work on holidays. In S.4(a)(1) it is provided that an employer may, by notice to writing, require any employee to work on any holiday allowed under S.3, which deals with grant of national and festival holidays. So the employer is retaining a power to compel the employee to work on a holiday also. This provision is intended to avoid any stalemate in the matter of adversely affecting the production in an industry, factory or plantation as the case may be, which may cause the employer undue hardship and loss 69. So the employer is retaining a power to compel the employee to work on a holiday also. This provision is intended to avoid any stalemate in the matter of adversely affecting the production in an industry, factory or plantation as the case may be, which may cause the employer undue hardship and loss 69. On an over all consideration of the different aspects highlighted by counsel for the appellants and the respondents, though we feel that is would have been more appropriate before making this law, which has an impact on the right under Art.19(1)(g) a detailed survey of She various aspects of the matter ought to have been undertaken by the Government bearing in our mind that it is axiomatic that our personal views and predilections on the question of encouraging a holiday culture have no part in the decision making process, and keeping consciously in our mind that while the court naturally attaches great weight to the legislative judgment, and that it cannot desert its own duly to determine finally the constitutionality of an impugned statute, particularly on the question of reasonableness of the restriction, we feel that it is not justifiable for us to say that the provision of increasing the festival holidays from 4 to 9 is an unreasonable restriction which invites this Court to declare the Amendment Act as unconstitutional, In doing so we remember that the courts are to a certain extent insulated from the social pulse of the people while the legislative body, gets more intimate beat and throb of the social problems of that sector of society which needed the legislation. 70. The learned Single Judge has also considered all these aspects elaborately and came to the conclusion that the provisions are not unconstitutional. We folly agree with the learned Single Judge. In the result, appeals fall and the appeals are dismissed. On pronouncing the judgment, counsel for the appellants in W. A. Nos. 1371/91, 1467/91, 1466/91, 1468/91, 1496/91, 13/92, 485/92, 1399/91, 1401/91, 1400/91, 1469/91, 1495/91, 1492/91, 422/92, 458/92 and 474/92 made an oral application for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, under Art.134A of the Constitution of India. We reserved consideration of the oral application for our decision. On a careful consideration of all the relevant matters, we decide Jo refuse leave to appeal. Leave refused.