ORDER In this petition, petitioners have sought for to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order and quash Section 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act, 1948. 2. The 1st petitioner-Factory is said to be engaged in manufacture and export of inner garments having high reputation in India as well as in the international market. Petitioners 2 to 11 are said to be the women employees working in the 1st petitioner establishment and in all about 193 women are working. Under the impression that the 1st petitioner is likely to retrench the substantial number of women employees, as women employees are barred from being employed beyond 7.00 p.m. under Section 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act of 1948 and that they would lose job and become unemployed in the event of enforcement of the said section, this petition is filed stating that the provisions provided are violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Articles 14, 15(1), 16(1), 16(2) and 19(1)(g) and Article 21 read with Article 39(a) of the Directive Principles of State Policy. 3. Heard the Counsel for the petitioners. 4. It is the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that due to social change from orthodox to present situation even women are participating in each and every field and if such a restraint is imposed, it comes in the way of employment and livelihood of petitioners 2 to 11 and accordingly, sought for to quash the provisions of Section 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act. 5. The High Court of Madras in Vasantha R. v Union of India and Others1 W.P. Nos. 4604 to 4606 of 1999 by Order dated 8-12-2000 has struck down Section 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act of 1948 as violative of above provisions. Similarly, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a Division Bench judgment in Triveni K.S. and Others v Union of India and Others2, W.P. No. 21610 of 1999 by order dated 2-11-2001 referring to the position of Madras High Court has reiterated these provisions as unconstitutional. 6. Similarly, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a Division Bench judgment in Triveni K.S. and Others v Union of India and Others2, W.P. No. 21610 of 1999 by order dated 2-11-2001 referring to the position of Madras High Court has reiterated these provisions as unconstitutional. 6. It is needless to say in the circumstances that when once any of the High Courts in the territory of India while dealing with the central legislation if it strikes down a particular provision as unconstitutional and the same is being removed from the statute, the submission that it is applicable only to the particular area is without any basis, unless and until the said order is set aside by the higher Court or by the larger Bench and the effect of removal of a particular provision from the statute will have a bearing on the entire territory of India. In that view of the matter once again declaring Section 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act as unconstitutional is redundant and such a prayer may not survive for consideration, rather, it is to be clarified that if the authorities without knowing the implications try to enforce the said provision which is declared as unconstitutional and removed from the statute, unless it is shown, that such an order is passed that it is applicable only to the particular territory, it amounts to enforcement of a provision without there being on the statute and without there being any authority of law. 7. With the above clarifications and in view of the law laid down by the Madras High Court and the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, this petition is disposed of